| Language | German |
| Inclusion criteria | Mild to moderate aphasia on TT; at least 50 out of 150 on AAT repetition |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 24 |
| 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 (piracetam group: mean 57.4 ± 13.5 years; placebo group: mean 56.3 ± 10.0 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 13; females: 11) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 24; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (T1: ~2 weeks; T2: ~8 weeks) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity only |
| Language evaluation | AAT |
| Aphasia severity | T1: piracetam group: TT 17.16 ± 14.31 errors; placebo group: TT 17.91 ± 15.47 errors; T2: piracetam group: TT 9.66 ± 12.62 errors; placebo group: TT 12.50 ± 16.88 errors |
| Aphasia type | Not stated |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Ischemic only |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Location only |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | 10 L frontal, 6 L subcortical, 8 L temporal |
| 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, ~2 weeks post onset; T2: post-treatment, ~8 weeks post onset |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | SLT, 1 hour/day, 5 days/week, 6 weeks; 12 patients received piracetam and 12 received placebo; note that the two groups are not directly compared in any imaging or behavioral analyses |
| 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? | N/A—no intersubject normalization |
| Imaging notes | — |
| Language condition | Word repetition |
| 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? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
| Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
| 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 | No control data are reported or cited, however the same task was used in several previous studies by this group |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia treated with pirecetam (n = 12) 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 | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L BA 44; (2) L BA 45; (3) L ventral PrCG; (4) L HG; (5) L BA 41 and 42; (6) L BA 22; (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ L posterior STG
↑ L Heschl's gyrus |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia treated with placebo (n = 12) 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 | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L BA 44; (2) L BA 45; (3) L ventral PrCG; (4) L HG; (5) L BA 41 and 42; (6) L BA 22; (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction |
| Findings notes | — |
