| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | L IFG, possibly extending to neighboring regions |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 8 |
| Number of control participants | 14 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (re-analysis of data from Blasi et al. (2002)) |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (mean 48.6 years; patients and controls not closely matched for age, unclear if difference significant) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 2; females: 6) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 8; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | No (> 6 months; actual TPO not stated) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
| Language evaluation | WAB or BDAE |
| Aphasia severity | AQ range 66.5-89.0 in 6 participants, BDAE aphasia severity of 4 in 1 participant, no formal evaluation in 1 participant |
| Aphasia type | 3 anomic, 3 transcortical motor, 1 Broca's, 1 not stated; most were Broca's or global acutely |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Ischemic only |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | L IFG and operculum, extending to adjacent cortex and white matter in several cases |
| 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 (Siemens Vision 1.5 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | 1024 |
| 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 | Word stem completion (novel items) |
| Control condition | Word stem completion (repeated items) |
| 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? | Yes, matched |
| 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? | Unknown |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
| Control activation notes | No whole brain analysis of this contrast, but somewhat lateralized in the sense that L but not R frontal areas showed a learning effect |
| Contrast notes | The only contrast analyzed in this paper is the "learning" contrast which corresponds to contrast 2 in Blasi et al. (2002) |
| First level contrast | Word stem completion (novel items) vs word stem completion (repeated items) |
| 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? | Yes, matched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
| Behavioral data notes | Covert task but overt data acquired separately; no interaction of group by practice for accuracy or RT |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Cerebellum |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
| Software | not stated |
| Voxelwise p | — |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 174; Monte Carlo-based thresholding not described; rather than fitting a HRF, the authors looked at the shape of the signal in the 8 volumes following each stimulus |
| Findings | ↑ L cerebellum
↓ R cerebellum |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Word stem completion (novel items) vs word stem completion (repeated items) |
| 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? | Yes, matched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
| Behavioral data notes | Covert task but overt data acquired separately; no interaction of group by practice for accuracy or RT |
| Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | L cerebellum |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | L cerebellar region with a learning effect in the patients |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | Circular because ROIs defined in one group; rather than fitting a HRF, the authors looked at the shape of the signal in the 8 volumes following each stimulus |
| Findings | ↑ L cerebellum |
| Findings notes | — |
