| Language | UK English |
| Inclusion criteria | Semantic aphasia; left frontal damage (+ other regions, typically) |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 14 |
| Number of control participants | 16 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 61 ± 11 years, range 38-80 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 5; females: 9) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 11-264 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
| Language evaluation | Cambridge semantic battery, three additional semantic tasks, connected speech words per minute, repetition from PALPA |
| Aphasia severity | Not stated |
| Aphasia type | 6 anomic, 2 Broca's, 2 global, 2 transcortical sensory, 1 mixed transcortical, 1 not stated |
| First stroke only? | Not stated |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | L IFG plus other MCA regions; vATL and pMTG spared |
| 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 (GE Signa HDx 3 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | 348 |
| 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 | interleaved silent steady state imaging |
| Language condition | Listening to high or low ambiguity sentences |
| Control condition | Listening to spectrally rotated 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? | Unknown |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
| Control activation notes | Hard to evaluate contrast because a "semantic mask" is used but is not described in detail |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Language condition | Listening to high ambiguity sentences |
| Control condition | Listening to low ambiguity sentences |
| 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? | 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 high or low ambiguity sentences vs listening to spectrally rotated 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 | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L vATL; (2) L pMTG |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Functional coordinates in literature |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | ANOVA revealed main effect of group (patient vs control), confirmed in follow-up tests for each ROI |
| Findings | ↑ L posterior MTG
↑ L anterior temporal |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to high ambiguity sentences vs listening to low ambiguity sentences |
| 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 | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L vATL; (2) L pMTG |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Functional coordinates in literature |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | No interaction of group by condition |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to high ambiguity sentences vs listening to low ambiguity sentences |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (subset with resting state data, n = 10) vs control (subset with resting state data, n = 10) |
| 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 | Complex |
| Statistical details | A whole brain analysis was carried out to identify regions where the groups differed in the extent to which the strength of functional connectivity at rest from L pMTG was associated with the difference in signal between the high ambiguity and low ambiguity conditions in the same ROI. Thresholding is not described and cluster extent is not reported. |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | There was a functional activation by group interaction in the L aSTG. For controls, there was a positive association between L pMTG activity and functional connectivity to aSTG, while for the patients, there was a negative association. |
| First level contrast | Listening to high ambiguity sentences vs listening to low ambiguity sentences |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (subset with resting state data, n = 10) vs control (subset with resting state data, n = 10) |
| 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 | Complex |
| Statistical details | A whole brain analysis was carried out to identify regions where the groups differed in the extent to which the strength of functional connectivity at rest from L pMTG was associated with the difference in signal between the high ambiguity and low ambiguity conditions in the same ROI. Thresholding is not described. |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | No interaction is reported; both groups showed a correlation between L vATL activity and functional connectivity to a ventral IFG region |
