| Language | UK English |
| Inclusion criteria | Lesion in vicinity of L STG; no extensive frontal damage; no inferior temporal damage; able to perform tasks |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 9 |
| Number of control participants | 18 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (median 58 years, range 39-72 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 8; females: 1) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 9; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 45 months, range 14-145 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity only |
| Language evaluation | Subtests from CAT, subtests from PALPA, Action for dysphasic adults, TROG, PPT |
| Aphasia severity | Mild |
| Aphasia type | Not stated |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | Lesion in vicinity of L STG; no extensive frontal damage; no inferior temporal damage |
| Participants notes | — |
| 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 (Siemens HR++ 966) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | PET |
| Total images acquired | 16 |
| 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 | Semantic decision |
| Control condition | Syllable count 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? | No, different |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | No, different |
| 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? | Somewhat |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
| Control activation notes | The control data provided also include the noise vocoded conditions; only ventral temporal activations are shown, which are L-lateralized |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs syllable count decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia vs control (clear speech) |
| 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? | Appear mismatched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
| Behavioral data notes | Interaction of group by task not reported for accuracy |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Small volume correction |
| Software | SPM99 |
| Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 with SVC in fusiform gyri, temporal poles, L IFG, L orbitofrontal and L SFG |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs syllable count decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Semantic decision accuracy |
| 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? | Accuracy is covariate |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Small volume correction |
| Software | SPM99 |
| Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 with SVC in fusiform gyri, temporal poles, L IFG, L orbitofrontal and L SFG |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | Fixed effects; this analysis is not clearly described |
| Findings | ↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus |
| Findings notes | Patients who were more accurate had more activity in R anterior fusiform gyrus |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs syllable count decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia vs control (clear speech) |
| 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? | Appear mismatched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
| Behavioral data notes | Interaction of group by task not reported for accuracy |
| Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | L fusiform gyrus |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Probabilistic brain atlas |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs syllable count decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia vs control (noise vocoded) |
| 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, but attempt made |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
| Behavioral data notes | Patients were more accurate on semantic decisions than syllable decisions, whereas controls were less accurate on noise vocoded semantic decisions than clear syllable decisions (which were the baseline for this analysis) |
| Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | L fusiform gyrus |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Probabilistic brain atlas |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | This analysis suggests that the difference between groups in the L fusiform gyrus disappears when the controls perform a semantic task that is similarly challenging |
