Language | UK English |
Inclusion criteria | Initial non-fluent aphasia due to anterior perisylvian lesion; subsequently recovered the ability to speak in sentences; patients were divided into those with and without damage to the IFG pars opercularis (POp+: n = 7; POp-: n = 7) |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 14 |
Number of control participants | 12 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (POp+: median 50 years, range 36-72 years; POp-: median 61 years, range 39-70 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 8; females: 6) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 14; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (POp+: median 39 months, range 19-134 months; POp-: median 17 months, range 6-240 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Type only |
Language evaluation | CAT, QPA |
Aphasia severity | Not stated |
Aphasia type | POp+: 4 non-fluent but not agrammatic, 2 agrammatic, 1 recovered; POp-: 4 non-fluent but not agrammatic, 3 recovered |
First stroke only? | No |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L frontal, occasionally extending into temporal |
Participants notes | 8 of 12 controls included in Blank et al. (2002) |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
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? | Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR++ (966)) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 15 (patients); 12 (controls) |
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 | Propositional speech production |
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? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | Much bilateral activation due to overt speech but pars opercularis and supratemporal plane L-lateralized |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Propositional speech production |
Control condition | Counting |
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? | 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? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | Extrasylvian; somewhat L-lateralized |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) 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? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Small volume correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ R IFG pars opercularis |
Findings notes | No voxels survived FWE correction without SVC |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia without IFG POp damage (n = 7) 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? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Small volume correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ R IFG pars opercularis |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs without IFG POp damage (n = 7) |
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? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Small volume correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | Patients with L IFG POp damage showed numerically more signal in the R IFG POp |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs counting |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) 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? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Small volume correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs counting |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia without IFG POp damage (n = 7) 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? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Small volume correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs counting |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs without IFG POp damage (n = 7) |
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? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Small volume correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) |
Covariate | Speech rate during scan |
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? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | R IFG pars opercularis |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Defined by flipping L IFG pars opercularis activation in controls |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia without IFG POp damage (n = 7) |
Covariate | Speech rate during scan |
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? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | R IFG pars opercularis |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Defined by flipping L IFG pars opercularis activation in controls |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) |
Covariate | Four different QPA measures |
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? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | R IFG pars opercularis |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Defined by flipping L IFG pars opercularis activation in controls |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |