| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | Anomia |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 30 (plus 5 excluded: 2 withdrew from non-treatment arm; 3 fMRI acquisition errors; 1 did not complete treatment and post-treatment scanning (but of these latter 4, one must have at least completed the non-treatment arm)) |
| Number of control participants | 17 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (treated group: mean 62.8 ± 10.2 years, range 42-80 years; untreated group: mean 59.0 ± 11.8 years, range 39-79 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 21; females: 9) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 27; left: 3) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (treated group: mean 58.3 ± 51.8 months, range 12-170 months; untreated group: mean 85.2 ± 141.9 months, range 10-467 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity only |
| Language evaluation | WAB, BNT, PPT |
| Aphasia severity | Treated group: AQ mean 60.1 ± 24.0, range 11.7-95.2; untreated group: AQ mean 65.8 ± 24.6, range 26.9-91.5 |
| Aphasia type | Not stated |
| First stroke only? | Not stated |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Treated group: 136.6 ± 81.1 cc, range 11.7-317.1 cc; untreated group: 112.7 ± 94.6 cc, range 1.6-317.1 cc |
| Lesion location | Mostly MCA with a few extending into PCA |
| Participants notes | There were 26 patients in the treated group and 10 in the untreated group, but 6 patients overlapped between the two groups (they joined the treated group after completing the untreated phase) |
| Modality | fMRI |
| Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
| If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~12 weeks later |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Semantic naming treatment, 2 sessions/week |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla, except for 2 patients on a Siemens Prisma 3 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No* (moderate limitation) (total images not stated; short ITI and minimal jitter) |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | not stated |
| Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
| Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | No* (moderate limitation) (unclear whether there was sufficient resting data to allow the key contrast to be computed) |
| Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Imaging notes | — |
| Language condition | Picture naming (trained items) |
| Control condition | Rest |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
| Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | No |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
| Control activation notes | Most ROIs deactivated in controls |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (trained items) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia treated T1 (n = 26) vs control |
| Covariate | — |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
| Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 16 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFGorb; (2) L IFGtri; (3) L IFGop; (4) L MFG; (5) L PrCG; (6) L MTG; (7) L SMG; (8) L AG; (9-16) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | AAL but lesioned voxels were excluded from ROIs on an individual basis |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ R IFG pars triangularis
↓ L angular gyrus |
| Findings notes | Significant interaction of ROI by group |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (trained items) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia treated T2 (n = 26) vs control |
| Covariate | — |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
| Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 16 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFGorb; (2) L IFGtri; (3) L IFGop; (4) L MFG; (5) L PrCG; (6) L MTG; (7) L SMG; (8) L AG; (9-16) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | AAL but lesioned voxels were excluded from ROIs on an individual basis |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ R IFG pars opercularis
↑ R IFG pars triangularis |
| Findings notes | Significant interaction of ROI by group; patients also showed more activity than controls across the average of all ROIs |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (trained items) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia untreated (n = 10) T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | — |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
| Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 16 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFGorb; (2) L IFGtri; (3) L IFGop; (4) L MFG; (5) L PrCG; (6) L MTG; (7) L SMG; (8) L AG; (9-16) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | AAL but lesioned voxels were excluded from ROIs on an individual basis |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | No main effect of time or interaction of time by ROI |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (trained items) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia treated (n = 26) T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | — |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
| Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Complex |
| Statistical details | A linear model was constructed to examine the relationship between proportion of spared tissue in each L hemisphere ROI and changes in activation over time. The model is not described in sufficient detail. |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | There was a significant 3-way interaction of time by ROI by spared tissue, such that in some regions (AG, MFG, IFG orb, SMG), less spared tissue was associated with greater increases in activation, while in others (PrCG, IFG op, IFG tri), less spared tissue was associated with greater decreases in activation. |
