| Language | German |
| Inclusion criteria | Global aphasia in the first three months; some improvement of comprehension within 6-12 months |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 7 |
| Number of control participants | 14 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 29-67 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 6; females: 1) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 7; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 6 months-4 years) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
| Language evaluation | AABT, AAT |
| Aphasia severity | TT percentile range 28-63 |
| Aphasia type | 3 global, 2 Broca's, 2 unclassifiable; all had been global initially |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| 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? | Yes (Philips ACS NT Gyroscan 1.5 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No* (moderate limitation) (insufficient blocks per experimental condition (3) because blocks were too long (44 s)) |
| Design type | Block |
| Total images acquired | 198 |
| 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 | Semantic decision |
| Control condition | Phonetic decision and lexical decision (conjunction) |
| 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? | Appear similar |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Tasks were matched in controls, but no statistics reported for patients |
| 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? | Yes |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
| Control activation notes | L-lateralized frontal activation, as well as temporal and parietal to a lesser extent |
| Contrast notes | Conjunction of baseline conditions not described in sufficient detail |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs phonetic decision and lexical decision (conjunction) |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia 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, no test |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Relative performance on language and control tasks unclear |
| Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | Language network LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | Conjunction analyses not clearly described; in two patients, a different conjunction was used (lexical decision vs phonetic decision & semantic decision vs phonetic decision) |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | LI > 0 in 12 out of 14 controls and 5 out of 7 patients; no significant difference |
