| Language | German |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 24 (plus 6 excluded: 4 did not tolerate MRI or PET scans; 2 TMS device was defective) |
| Number of control participants | 0 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (rTMS group: mean 69.8 ± 8.0 years; sham group: mean 71.2 ± 7.8 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
| 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? | Yes (rTMS group: mean 37.5 ± 18.5 days; sham group: mean 50.6 ± 22.6 days) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
| Language evaluation | AAT |
| Aphasia severity | T1: rTMS group: AAT sum of scores mean 251.5 ± 32.4; sham group: mean 251.1 ± 39.5; T2 not stated |
| Aphasia type | T1: rTMS group: 7 Wernicke's, 3 amnestic, 2 global, 1 Broca's; sham group: 5 Wernicke's, 3 Broca's, 2 global, 1 amnestic; T2: not stated |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Ischemic only |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
| Lesion extent | RTMS group: 233 ± 197 cc; sham group: 244 ± 243 cc; lesion extent in images appears much smaller than the stated volumes |
| Lesion location | L MCA |
| Participants notes | — |
| Modality | PET (rCBF) |
| Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—mixed |
| If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/subacute (rTMS group: mean 37.5 ± 18.5 days post onset; sham group: mean 50.6 ± 22.6 days post onset); T2 post-treatment, ~2.5 weeks later |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | RTMS group: inhibitory rTMS over the R IFG pars triangularis + SLT for 45 minutes/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks; control group: sham TMS + SLT |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | PET |
| Total images acquired | 8 |
| 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? | No (lesion impact not addressed) |
| Imaging notes | — |
| Language condition | Verb generation |
| Control condition | Rest |
| 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? | Unknown |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
| Control activation notes | Cites Weiduschat et al. (2011) which in turn cites Herholz et al. (1996) which provides some minimal control data |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia |
| Group(s) | (Aphasia with rTMS (n = 13) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with sham (n = 11) T2 vs T1) |
| 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? | Unknown, not reported |
| 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 direct comparison |
| Software | SPM8 |
| Voxelwise p | — |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 2244 |
| Findings | ↑ L IFG
↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ R IFG
↓ R posterior STG/STS/MTG |
| Findings notes | Approximate interpretation of qualitative patterns shown in Figure 3; T1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia |
| Group(s) | (Aphasia with rTMS (n = 13) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with sham (n = 11) T2 vs T1) |
| 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? | Unknown, not reported |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | Language network LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | Actual LIs are not reported, only change in LI |
| Findings | ↑ LI (language network) |
| Findings notes | T1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | Δ AAT total score |
| 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 | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | Language network LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | Model did not include treatment group (rTMS vs sham) |
| Findings | ↑ LI (language network) |
| Findings notes | Patients who improved more showed a greater leftward shift of activation; T1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group |
