Language | UK English |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 24 |
Number of control participants | 11 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 32-85 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 18; females: 6) |
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? | No (mean 32 months, range 2-204 months; combines subacute and chronic patients) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | CAT (missing in two participants) |
Aphasia severity | Not stated |
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 | 6 L but no temporal damage, 9 L temporal damage excluding anterior temporal cortex, 9 L temporal damage including anterior temporal cortex |
Participants notes | Results of control participants previously reported in Crinion et al. (2003) |
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 (16 patients and all controls) or GE Advance (8 patients)) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 12-16 |
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 | two different scanners used for patients, but not for controls |
Language condition | Listening to narrative speech |
Control condition | Listening to reversed speech |
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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no timeable task |
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? | Yes |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | 11 participants; L-lateralized posterior temporal, bilateral anterior temporal, no frontal |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise FWE correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia without temporal lobe damage (n = 6) 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all included patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise FWE correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 18) 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all included patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise FWE correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia with no temporal damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) or posterior temporal damage sparing anterior temporal cortex (n = 13) |
Covariate | Auditory sentence comprehension (CAT) |
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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
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)? | L ATL |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activation in the control group |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | Same result obtained with or without excluding one outlier; two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses |
Findings | ↑ L anterior temporal |
Findings notes | More activity in patients with better auditory sentence comprehension |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia with no temporal damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) or posterior temporal damage sparing anterior temporal cortex (n = 13) |
Covariate | Time post onset |
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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
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)? | L ATL |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activation in the control group |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | Two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal damage excluding anterior temporal cortex (n = 9) vs with no temporal lobe damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) (n = 4) |
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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
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)? | L ATL |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activation in the control group |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | Two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses |
Findings | ↓ L anterior temporal |
Findings notes | Patients with posterior temporal damage had less signal change |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal damage excluding anterior temporal cortex (n = 9) 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
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)? | L ATL |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activation in the control group |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | Circular because ROI defined in one group; two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses |
Findings | ↓ L anterior temporal |
Findings notes | Large difference 2.7 ± 0.8 (patients) vs 6.3 ± 1.4 (controls) makes finding suggestive even in light of the circularity |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia with no temporal damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) or posterior temporal damage sparing anterior temporal cortex (n = 13) |
Covariate | Auditory single word comprehension (CAT) |
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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
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)? | L ATL |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activation in the control group |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | Two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | R = 0.39; p > 0.1; seems to be a clear trend so lack of significance may reflect only lack of power |