| Language | German |
| Inclusion criteria | Age 55-85 |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 10 (plus 4 excluded: 3 malfunction of TMS device or claustrophobia; 1 recovered nearly completely prior to intervention) |
| Number of control participants | 0 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 59-83 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 5; females: 5) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 10; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 18-97 days; patients at different subacute stages of recovery) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Type only |
| Language evaluation | AAT |
| Aphasia severity | T1: TT range 0-45 errors; T2: TT range 0-44 errors |
| Aphasia type | T1: 5 Wernicke's, 2 Broca's, 2 global, 1 amnestic fluent; T2: not stated |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Extent and location |
| Lesion extent | Range 0.7-88.9 cc |
| Lesion location | L MCA |
| Participants notes | — |
| Modality | PET (rCBF) |
| Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—mixed |
| If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/subacute (range 18-97 days post onset); T2: post-treatment, ~2 weeks later |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Individualized SLT, 45 minutes/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks; 6 patients underwent rTMS to the R IFG pars triangularis; 4 received vertex (sham) rTMS |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | PET |
| Total images acquired | 8 |
| Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
| Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Imaging notes | — |
| Language condition | Verb generation |
| Control condition | Rest |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
| Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
| 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? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
| Control activation notes | Control data in Herholz et al. (1996); insufficient to fully validate the contrast |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 (regardless of rTMS) |
| 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 | — |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) IFG LI; (2) superior temporal LI; (3) SMA LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia treated with rTMS (n = 6) 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 | — |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) IFG LI; (2) superior temporal LI; (3) SMA LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia |
| Group(s) | (Aphasia with R IFG rTMS (n = 6) T2 vs T1) vs (with sham rTMS (n = 4) 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 | — |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) IFG LI; (2) superior temporal LI; (3) SMA LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ LI (frontal) |
| Findings notes | IFG LI was stable in the stimulation group, but shifted to the R in the sham group, yielding a significant difference between groups |
