| Language | UK English |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 21 |
| Number of control participants | 21 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (unclear how many, if any, patients were included in previous studies from this group; design is identical to Tyler et al. (2010)) |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 57.4 ± 12.5 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 15; females: 6) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 21; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 6.5 ± 7.5 years, > 1.4 years) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Not at all |
| Language evaluation | Sentence-picture matching |
| 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 | L MCA |
| Participants notes | 3 of the 21 patients were not stroke, but were post resective surgery |
| 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 Trio 3 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No* (moderate limitation) (there was only one block per condition per run, so condition could be confounded with low frequency drift; also, the length of the sentences is not stated so it is unclear how well the HRF peak aligns with the sparse acquisitions) |
| Design type | Block |
| Total images acquired | 69 |
| 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 | Listening to normal sentences and detecting a target word |
| Control condition | Rest |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
| 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? | Yes |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | No |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
| Control activation notes | Bilateral superior temporal, sensorimotor and visual |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Language condition | Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word |
| Control condition | Rest |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
| 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? | No |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
| Control activation notes | — |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to normal sentences and detecting a target word vs rest |
| 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? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Software | SPM5 |
| Voxelwise p | .01 |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
↓ L mid temporal |
| Findings notes | At a more stringent threshold of p < .001, with correction for multiple comparisons based on GRFT and cluster extent, only L HG showed reduced activity in patients |
| First level contrast | Listening to normal sentences and detecting a target word vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | See statistical details |
| 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, not reported |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Complex |
| Statistical details | Joint ICA was performed on structural and functional contrast images for each of the two contrasts using FIT 2.0b. Seven components were derived, of which 2 were further investigated since their loadings correlated with relevant behavioral measures. Functional components were thresholded at p < .001, cluster-corrected for multiple comparisons, minimum cluster extent = 1.27 cc. Component 1 was considered a "semantics component" because it correlated with the semantic behavioral measure and not with either of the two syntactic measures. This component did not have any anatomical aspect to it. Component 2 was considered a "syntax component" because it correlated with both syntactic behavioral measures and not with the semantic measure. This conceptualization seems somewhat speculative, given that WPE NP and WPE AP are rather indirect measures of syntactic and semantic processing. Component 2 involved damage to left frontal and insular cortex, and underlying dorsal white matter. |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | Contrast 1 loaded primarily on the R STG for component 1 (the "semantics component") and on the L ITG for component 2 (the "syntax component"). |
| First level contrast | Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | See statistical details |
| 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, not reported |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Complex |
| Statistical details | Joint ICA was performed on structural and functional contrast images for each of the two contrasts using FIT 2.0b. Seven components were derived, of which 2 were further investigated since their loadings correlated with relevant behavioral measures. Functional components were thresholded at p < .001, cluster-corrected for multiple comparisons, minimum cluster extent = 1.27 cc. Component 1 was considered a "semantics component" because it correlated with the semantic behavioral measure and not with either of the two syntactic measures. This component did not have any anatomical aspect to it. Component 2 was considered a "syntax component" because it correlated with both syntactic behavioral measures and not with the semantic measure. This conceptualization seems somewhat speculative, given that WPE NP and WPE AP are rather indirect measures of syntactic and semantic processing. Component 2 involved damage to left frontal and insular cortex, and underlying dorsal white matter. |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | Contrast 2 loaded primarily on the R posterior STG for component 1 (the "semantics component") and on the L posterior STG and L IFG for component 2 (the "syntax component"). |
