| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 19 (plus 7 excluded: 6 for making fewer than 5 correct responses in one or more sessions; 1 for excessive head motion) |
| Number of control participants | 0 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes ("several" patients overlapped with those reported by Fridriksson et al. (2009, 2010)) |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 59.7 ± 12.3 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 12; females: 14) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (> 8 months; actual TPO not stated) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
| Language evaluation | WAB |
| Aphasia severity | AQ mean 60.4 ± 25.6 (including excluded patients) |
| Aphasia type | 11 anomic, 10 Broca's, 3 conduction, 1 transcortical motor, 1 Wernicke's (including excluded patients) |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Ischemic only |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | L MCA |
| Participants notes | Demographic data includes excluded patients |
| Modality | fMRI |
| Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
| If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment/~4 weeks later; note that there were two separate sessions per time point, as well as another two sessions midway through treatment that are not analyzed in this paper |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Anomia treatment using a cueing hierarchy, 3 hours/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks, with a 1-week gap between the two weeks |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (timing of stimuli within the silent periods is unclear) |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | 120 |
| 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 | sparse sampling |
| Language condition | Picture naming (correct trials) |
| Control condition | Viewing abstract pictures |
| 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? | Somewhat |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | No |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
| Control activation notes | Control data in Fridriksson et al. (2007); motor activations are prominent; there is some L frontal activation but little temporal activation in either hemisphere. |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | Δ picture naming 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? | Yes, correct trials only |
| 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 | Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p |
| Software | FSL 4.1 |
| Voxelwise p | ~.01 (z > 2.3) |
| Cluster extent | Based on GRFT |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ L supramarginal gyrus
↑ L intraparietal sulcus
↑ L superior parietal
↑ L precuneus |
| Findings notes | Activated regions were on the borders on the lesion distribution in the 19 included patients |
