| Language | German |
| Inclusion criteria | Moderate to severe anomia |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 8 |
| Number of control participants | 9 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 34-67 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 5; females: 3) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 8; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 1.8-6.9 years) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
| Language evaluation | AAT |
| Aphasia severity | 6 moderate-severe, 2 severe |
| Aphasia type | 7 Broca's, 1 global |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | L |
| Participants notes | — |
| 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, ~2 weeks later; T3: 8 months after the end of treatment |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Intensive anomia training; 3 hours/day; 2 weeks |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (Philips Intera 3 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (total images acquired not stated) |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | probably ~360, but 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? | Yes |
| 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? | Unknown |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
| Control activation notes | Table of coordinates only |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Language condition | Picture naming (untrained 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? | Unknown |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
| Control activation notes | Table of coordinates only |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (trained items) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | Subsequent outcome (T2) picture naming of trained items outside the scanner |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (the logic behind correlating activation changes and language outcome is unclear) |
| Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, no test |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Mixed** (major limitation) |
| Software | SPM2 |
| Voxelwise p | .05, but at least one voxel in the cluster had to be p < .001 |
| Cluster extent | 0.270 cc |
| Statistical details | There was an exclusive mask based on activation changes for untrained pictures, but it is unclear what the behavioral covariate was for the mask generation, nor were the regions in the mask reported |
| Findings | ↑ L occipital
↑ L hippocampus/MTL
↑ R precuneus
↑ R occipital
↑ R posterior cingulate
↑ R hippocampus/MTL |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (untrained items) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T3 vs T1 |
| Covariate | Subsequent outcome (T3) picture naming of trained items outside the scanner |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (the logic behind correlating activation changes and language outcome is unclear) |
| Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, no test |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Mixed** (major limitation) |
| Software | SPM2 |
| Voxelwise p | .05, but at least one voxel in the cluster had to be p < .001 |
| Cluster extent | 0.270 cc |
| Statistical details | There was an exclusive mask based on activation changes for untrained pictures, but it is unclear what the behavioral covariate was for the mask generation, nor were the regions in the mask reported |
| Findings | ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R inferior parietal lobule
↓ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↓ R basal ganglia |
| Findings notes | — |
