Language | US English |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 12 (plus 2 excluded: 1 for illness; 1 for MRI contraindication or personal conflict (inconsistent information provided)) |
Number of control participants | 0 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (same data as Dietz et al. (2016), which is a methodological paper) |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (AAC group: range 39-63 years; usual care group: range 47-71 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 5; females: 7) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 11; left: 1) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (AAC group: range 16-170 months; usual care group: range 38-105 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
Language evaluation | WAB, Reading Comprehension Battery for Aphasia |
Aphasia severity | AAC group: AQ range 37.6-82.4; usual care group: AQ range 36.7-89.2 |
Aphasia type | AAC group: 2 Broca's, 1 anomic, 1 conduction, 1 global, 1 Wernicke's; usual care group: 2 anomic, 2 Broca's, 1 conduction, 1 Wernicke's |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | AAC group: range 7849-30570 voxels; usual care group: 1583-30110 voxels (voxel size not stated) |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | — |
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 |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | AAC group: treatment aimed at teaching participants how to utilize AAC to facilitate discourse; usual care group: traditional SLT, not focused on discourse or AAC specifically |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Philips Achieva 3 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | 135 |
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? | No (no description of HRF model, which is important given sparse sampling design) |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | No (lesion impact not addressed) |
Imaging notes | additional methodological details in Dietz et al. (2016) |
Language condition | Verb generation (overt) |
Control condition | Noun repetition |
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? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
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? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | Control data in Allendorfer et al. (2012); somewhat L-lateralized frontal, temporal and parietal activations, but also extensive midline activation |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Verb generation (overt) vs noun repetition |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with AAC treatment (n = 6) T2 vs usual care T2 (n = 6) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (marginal treatment effect) |
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)? | Frontal LI |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | Temporal LI calculated but not reported |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Verb generation (overt) vs noun repetition |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia (both groups) T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | Δ WAB AQ |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (gain in AQ not tested for significance) |
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)? | Frontal LI |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | Temporal LI calculated but not reported |
Findings | ↑ LI (frontal) |
Findings notes | — |