Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Stockert et al. (2020)

Reference

Authors	Stockert A, Wawrzyniak M, Klingbeil J, Wrede K, Kümmerer D, Hartwigsen G, Kaller CP, Weiller C, Saur D
Title	Dynamics of language reorganization after left temporo-parietal and frontal stroke
Reference	Brain 2020; 143: 844-861
PMID	32068789
DOI	10.1093/brain/awaa023

Participants

Language	German
Inclusion criteria	Lesion localized to frontal or temporal cortex
Number of individuals with aphasia	34 (plus 50 excluded: 19 lesions spanned frontal and temporal, or were subcortical, or had persisting large vessel occlusions; 31 not all three timepoints were acquired)
Number of control participants	17
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	Yes (8 patients were included in Saur et al. (2006); there may also be overlap with Saur et al. (2010), a study that did not meet our inclusion criteria)
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (frontal group: mean 52.3 ± 18.9 years, range 15-78 years; temporo-parietal group: mean 54.4 ± 12.7 years, range 31-76 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 25; females: 9)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No (right: 31; left: 2; other: 1; not stated for controls)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (frontal group: T1 acute: mean 3.2 ± 2.0 days, range 1-7 days; T2 subacute: mean 11.9 ± 2.2 days, range 8-17 days; T3 chronic: mean 272.6 ± 88.5 days, range 181-435 days; temporo-parietal group: T1 acute: mean 1.6 ± 0.8 days, range 1-4 days; T2 subacute: mean 10.1 ± 1.7 days, range 8-13 days; T3 chronic: mean 262.5 ± 75.0 days, range 184-394 days)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity only
Language evaluation	AAT including TT, comprehension composite (LRScomp) and production composite (LRSprod) were derived
Aphasia severity	Frontal group: T1 acute: LRScomp mean 0.48 ± 0.26; T2 subacute: LRScomp mean 0.64 ± 0.21; T3 chronic: LRScomp mean 0.91 ± 0.07; temporo-parietal group: T1 acute: LRScomp mean 0.63 ± 0.32; T2 subacute: LRScomp mean 0.79 ± 0.20; T3 chronic: LRScomp mean 0.91 ± 0.13
Aphasia type	Not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Frontal group: mean 69.3 ± 34.0 cc, range 12.3-76.6 cc; temporo-parietal group: mean 54.8 ± 41.1 cc, range 6.2-108.5 cc
Lesion location	L MCA, frontal (n = 17) or temporo-parietal (n = 17)
Participants notes	1630 patients screened for inclusion; frontal patients scanned later than temporal patients at T1 and T2

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—recovery
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1 acute: 1-7 days; T2 subacute: 8-21 days; T3 chronic: > 6 months
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Not stated
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla or Siemens Verio 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	660 (20 patients; paradigm 1) or 260 (14 patients; paradigm 2)
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	No (whole brain; TE = 96 ms questionable)
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	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

No (description implies that paradigm 2 did not include a semantically anomalous condition, but previous papers indicate that it did)

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1)	None	46	Unknown	Unknown
listening to semantically anomalous sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1)	Button press	46	Unknown	Unknown
listening to reversed speech	Button press	paradigm 1: 92; paradigm 2: 30	Yes	Unknown
listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2)	Button press	15	Yes	Unknown
listening to semantically anomalous sentences (paradigm 2)	Button press	15	Yes	Unknown
listening to pseudoword speech (paradigm 2)	Button press	30	Yes	Unknown
rest	None	implicit baseline	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Conditions 2, 5, and 6 were not used, and condition 7 was effectively contrasted out; reported behavioral data collapses across conditions and paradigms and so does not establish performance on any specific condition, but the data suggest that at least the conditions where no language-related decisions were required could have been performed by all groups

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

No (see specific limitation(s) below)

Contrast 1: listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech

Language condition	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2)
Control condition	Listening to reversed speech
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	In paradigm 1, responses were required in the language condition but not the control condition, making the tasks not comparable for RT
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?	Yes
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	Not stated which of the two paradigms controls were run on, but clearly L-lateralized frontal and temporal activation; bilateral MD network activation also noted
Contrast notes	20 patients performed paradigm 1 and 14 patients performed paradigm 2; data were combined despite some differences; unclear whether all reversed speech was included, or only reversed speech derived from plausible sentences

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	13
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Post-hoc tests comparing 2 out of the 3 time points were corrected using the Bonferroni-Holm procedure, but there is no indication that that multiple comparisons across ROIs were accounted for
Findings	↑ L IFG pars orbitalis ↑ L insula ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R insula
Findings notes	Based on Figure 3; several additional regions are mentioned in text and/or Table 1

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	13
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Post-hoc tests comparing 2 out of the 3 time points were corrected using the Bonferroni-Holm procedure, but there is no indication that that multiple comparisons across ROIs were accounted for
Findings	↑ L IFG pars orbitalis ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ L anterior temporal
Findings notes	Based on Figure 3; several additional regions are mentioned in text and/or Table 1

ROI analysis 3

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 vs T2
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	13
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Post-hoc tests comparing 2 out of the 3 time points were corrected using the Bonferroni-Holm procedure, but there is no indication that that multiple comparisons across ROIs were accounted for
Findings	None
Findings notes	Based on Figure 3; several additional regions are mentioned in text and/or Table 1

ROI analysis 4

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal mean of T1, T2, T3 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal mean of T1, T2, T3 (n = 17)
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	13
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ R IFG pars orbitalis ↑ R anterior temporal ↓ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ L IFG pars triangularis ↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes	Based on Table 1

ROI analysis 5

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T2 vs T1) vs (temporo-parietal (n = 17) 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	13
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Interactions were significant in model with all 3 time points; post-hoc sub-interactions not reported but the patterns appear clear
Findings	↓ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ L IFG pars triangularis ↓ R IFG pars triangularis ↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 6

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T3 vs T1) vs (temporo-parietal (n = 17) T3 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	13
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Interactions were significant in model with all 3 time points; post-hoc sub-interactions not reported and patterns are not clear
Findings	↓ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ L IFG pars triangularis ↓ R IFG pars triangularis ↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 7

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T3 vs T2) vs (temporo-parietal (n = 17) T3 vs T2)
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	13
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Post-hoc sub-interactions not reported but there do not appear to be any T2/T3 effects
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 8

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Test of group by time interaction not reported
Findings	Other
Findings notes	There was a significant increase in activation in perilesional ROIs

ROI analysis 9

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Test of group by time interaction not reported
Findings	Other
Findings notes	There was a significant increase in activation in perilesional ROIs

ROI analysis 10

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 vs T2
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Test of group by time interaction not reported
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 11

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal mean of T1, T2, T3 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal mean of T1, T2, T3 (n = 17)
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Test of group by time interaction not reported; this comparison is somewhat questionable given the differing extent to which frontal and temporal regions are activated in controls
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Frontal patients showed relatively greater activation in regions homotopic to their lesions

ROI analysis 12

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T1 (n = 17) 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	13
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; circular because patients but not controls used to define ROIs
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L IFG pars triangularis ↓ L insula ↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 13

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia temporo-parietal T1 (n = 17) 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	13
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; circular because patients but not controls used to define ROIs
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L IFG pars triangularis ↓ L insula ↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ R IFG pars triangularis
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 14

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T1 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T1 (n = 17)
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	13
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L anterior temporal ↑ R IFG pars triangularis ↑ R anterior temporal
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 15

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T2 (n = 17) 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	13
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; circular because patients but not controls used to define ROIs
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L IFG pars triangularis
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 16

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia temporo-parietal T2 (n = 17) 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	13
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; circular because patients but not controls used to define ROIs
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 17

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T2 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T2 (n = 17)
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	13
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ L IFG pars triangularis ↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 18

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T3 (n = 17) 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	13
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; circular because patients but not controls used to define ROIs
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L IFG pars triangularis ↓ L insula
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 19

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia temporo-parietal T3 (n = 17) 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	13
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; circular because patients but not controls used to define ROIs
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 20

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T3 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T3 (n = 17)
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	13
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ L IFG pars triangularis ↓ L IFG pars orbitalis ↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 21

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T1 (n = 17) 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Frontal patients showed reduced activation in perilesional tissue

ROI analysis 22

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T2 (n = 17) 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Frontal patients showed reduced activation in perilesional tissue

ROI analysis 23

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T3 (n = 17) 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Frontal patients showed reduced activation in perilesional tissue

ROI analysis 24

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia temporo-parietal T1 (n = 17) 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Temporal patients showed reduced activation in perilesional tissue and in regions homotopic to their lesions

ROI analysis 25

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia temporo-parietal T2 (n = 17) 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 26

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia temporo-parietal T3 (n = 17) 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 27

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T1
Covariate	Comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ L IFG pars triangularis ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis other
Findings notes	L IFG pars opercularis and orbitalis did not remain significant when lesion volume was included as a covariate; there was a significant correlation between perilesional activation and LRScomp; this did not remain significant when lesion volume was included as a covariate

ROI analysis 28

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2
Covariate	Comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars triangularis other
Findings notes	There was a significant correlation between perilesional activation and LRScomp

ROI analysis 29

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T3
Covariate	Comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars triangularis
Findings notes	Did not remain significant when lesion volume was included as a covariate

ROI analysis 30

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L insula ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes	R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex did not remain significant when lesion volume was included as a covariate

ROI analysis 31

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 vs T1
Covariate	Δ comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 32

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 vs T2
Covariate	Δ comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 33

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T1 (n = 17)
Covariate	Comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 34

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T2 (n = 17)
Covariate	Comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 35

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T3 (n = 17)
Covariate	Comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 36

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 37

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T3 vs T1
Covariate	Δ comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 38

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T3 vs T2
Covariate	Δ comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 39

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia temporo-parietal T1 (n = 17)
Covariate	Comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ R anterior temporal
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 40

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia temporo-parietal T2 (n = 17)
Covariate	Comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 41

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia temporo-parietal T3 (n = 17)
Covariate	Comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 42

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia temporo-parietal (n = 17) T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L insula
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 43

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia temporo-parietal (n = 17) T3 vs T1
Covariate	Δ comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 44

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia temporo-parietal (n = 17) T3 vs T2
Covariate	Δ comprehension composite
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 45

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T1
Covariate	Lesion volume
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L IFG pars triangularis
Findings notes	Lesion volume negatively correlated with activation

ROI analysis 46

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2
Covariate	Lesion volume
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 47

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T3
Covariate	Lesion volume
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 48

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Lesion volume
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 49

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 vs T1
Covariate	Lesion volume
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 50

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 vs T2
Covariate	Lesion volume
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	15
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Complex analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T1 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T1 (n = 17)
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations between activity in 15 ROIs and LRScomp were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions, using interaction terms as well as the Fisher r-to-z transformation. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs.
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Correlations were higher in the temporal group in the R ATL.

Complex analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T2 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T2 (n = 17)
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations between activity in 15 ROIs and LRScomp were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions, using interaction terms as well as the Fisher r-to-z transformation. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs.
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Correlations were higher in the temporal group in L posterior temporal cortex and L IFG op.

Complex analysis 3

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T3 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T3 (n = 17)
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations between activity in 15 ROIs and LRScomp were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions, using interaction terms. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs.
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Correlations were different between groups in the R ATL, but the correlation is not reported as significant in the temporo-parietal group alone.

Complex analysis 4

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia temporo-parietal (n = 17) 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations between changes in activity in 15 ROIs and changes in LRScomp were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions, using interaction terms as well as the Fisher r-to-z transformation. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs.
Findings	Other
Findings notes	In the L insula, the temporo-parietal group showed a stronger correlation than the frontal group between changes in activation and changes in LRScomp.

Complex analysis 5

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T3 vs T1) vs (temporo-parietal (n = 17) T3 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations between changes in activity in 15 ROIs and changes in LRScomp were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions, using interaction terms as well as the Fisher r-to-z transformation. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs.
Findings	Other
Findings notes	In the L insula, the temporo-parietal group showed a stronger correlation than the frontal group between changes in activation and changes in LRScomp.

Complex analysis 6

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T3 vs T2) vs (temporo-parietal (n = 17) T3 vs T2)
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations between changes in activity in 15 ROIs and changes in LRScomp were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions, using interaction terms as well as the Fisher r-to-z transformation. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs.
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Complex analysis 7

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T1 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T1 (n = 17)
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations between activity in 15 ROIs and lesion extent were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs.
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Complex analysis 8

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T2 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T2 (n = 17)
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations between activity in 15 ROIs and lesion extent were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs.
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Complex analysis 9

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia frontal T3 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T3 (n = 17)
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations between activity in 15 ROIs and lesion extent were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs.
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Complex analysis 10

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T2 vs T1) vs (temporo-parietal (n = 17) 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations between changes in activity in 15 ROIs and lesion extent were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs.
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Complex analysis 11

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T3 vs T1) vs (temporo-parietal (n = 17) T3 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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations between changes in activity in 15 ROIs and lesion extent were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs.
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Complex analysis 12

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T3 vs T2) vs (temporo-parietal (n = 17) T3 vs T2)
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations between changes in activity in 15 ROIs and lesion extent were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs.
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Complex analysis 13

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T1
Covariate	Interaction of comprehension composite by lesion size
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	To investigate why some activation-behavior relationships did not remain significant when lesion extent was included as a covariate, models were constructed looking at the relationship between activation and behavior in patients with larger and smaller lesions.
Findings	Other
Findings notes	The three regions where this applied at T1, namely perilesional cortex, L IFG op, and L IFG orb, all showed positive correlations between activation and LRScomp in patients with larger lesions, but no correlations in patients with smaller lesions.

Complex analysis 14

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Interaction of Δ comprehension composite by lesion size
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?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	To investigate why some activation-behavior relationships did not remain significant when lesion extent was included as a covariate, models were constructed looking at the relationship between activation and behavior in patients with larger and smaller lesions.
Findings	Other
Findings notes	This applied to the R DLPFC in the T2 vs T1 analysis. This region showed a positive correlation between activation and LRScomp in patients with larger lesions, but no correlation in patients with smaller lesions.

Notes

Excluded analyses

ROI analyses 27-32 and 45-50 were carried out with and without lesion extent as a covariate, but are coded only once, with notes as to which regions did not remain significant when the covariate was included