Language | US English |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 8 |
Number of control participants | 8 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 40-79 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (males: 5; females: 3; control sex not stated, but reported to be matched) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 8; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 48.3 months, range 30-78 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | WAB, BNT, portions of PALPA, PPT, CLQT |
Aphasia severity | AQ range 74.0-97.8 |
Aphasia type | 6 anomic, 2 recovered |
First stroke only? | Not stated |
Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Range 23-45 cc |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | No (GE 3 Tesla; model not stated) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No* (moderate limitation) (control events took place in the inter-trial interval between language events, and may have been systematically confounded in timing; the total number of functional images acquired is not stated) |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | not stated |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | No (only correct trials are included but it is not stated how incorrect trials were modeled; in general, it is not stated whether the control events were modeled at all) |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Picture naming (correct trials) |
Control condition | Viewing scrambled images and saying "pass" |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
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? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy/RT not reported for control task |
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? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
Control activation notes | Reporting is selective, but appears mostly bilateral with slight L-lateralization of language areas |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Semantic decision (correct trials) |
Control condition | Visual decision |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
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? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy/RT not reported for control task |
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? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | Clearly lateralized frontal activation, but very modest temporal activation |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "pass" |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
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? | Yes, correct trials only |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Mixed |
How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG (oper/tri); (2) L posterior perisylvian (pSTG, pMTG, AG, SMG); (3) R IFG (oper/tri); (4) R posterior perisylvian (pSTG, pMTG, AG, SMG); (5) language network LI |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Harvard–Oxford atlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ R supramarginal gyrus ↑ R angular gyrus ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ LI (language network) |
Findings notes | Larger lesions were associated with more R posterior perisylvian activation |
First level contrast | Semantic decision (correct trials) vs visual decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
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? | Yes, correct trials only |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Mixed |
How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG (oper/tri); (2) L posterior perisylvian (pSTG, pMTG, AG, SMG); (3) R IFG (oper/tri); (4) R posterior perisylvian (pSTG, pMTG, AG, SMG); (5) language network LI |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Harvard–Oxford atlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |