| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | Aphasia at acute screening (not necessarily at first study time point) |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 17 (plus 1 excluded: significant signal artifacts) |
| Number of control participants | 85 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 46 ± 16 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 9; females: 8) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (right: 17; left: 0; all patients stated to be right handed, but "ambidextrous patients" mentioned on p. 364) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (T1: ~2 weeks; T2: ~6 weeks; T3: ~12 weeks; T4: ~26 weeks; T5: ~52 weeks) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Not at all |
| Language evaluation | PPVT, BNT, phonemic fluency, semantic fluency, complex ideation subtest of BDAE |
| Aphasia severity | Not stated for study timepoints, but on admission, aphasia severity was assessed with the TT: 2 no aphasia per cutoff but clinical impression of aphasia, 5 mild, 6 moderate, 4 severe |
| Aphasia type | Not stated |
| First stroke only? | No |
| Stroke type | Ischemic only |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | L MCA; mostly posterior per Supplementary Figure 2 |
| Participants notes | Presence and severity of aphasia assessed on hospital admission, not at first study time point, so it is not clear that all participants actually had aphasia at first study time point |
| Modality | fMRI |
| Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—recovery |
| If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: ~2 weeks; T2: ~6 weeks; T3: ~12 weeks; T4: ~26 weeks; T5: ~52 weeks |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Not stated |
| Is the scanner described? | No (Philips 3 Tesla or Siemens 3 Tesla; models not stated) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | Block |
| Total images acquired | 600 |
| 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 | scanner identity appropriately included as covariate |
| Language condition | Semantic decision |
| Control condition | Tone decision |
| 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? | Appear mismatched |
| 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? | Yes |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
| Control activation notes | L lateral and medial frontal and AG, strongly lateralized |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Language condition | Verb generation |
| Control condition | Finger tapping |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
| Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
| 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? | Yes |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
| Control activation notes | L lateral and medial frontal and mid temporal, strongly lateralized |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 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? | Appear mismatched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise correction based on permutation testing |
| Software | SPM12/SnPM13 |
| Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L Heschl's gyrus |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 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? | Appear mismatched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise correction based on permutation testing |
| Software | SPM12/SnPM13 |
| Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T3 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? | Appear mismatched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise correction based on permutation testing |
| Software | SPM12/SnPM13 |
| Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T4 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? | Appear mismatched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise correction based on permutation testing |
| Software | SPM12/SnPM13 |
| Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T5 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? | Appear mismatched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise correction based on permutation testing |
| Software | SPM12/SnPM13 |
| Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
| Covariate | Semantic decision accuracy |
| 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? | Accuracy is covariate |
| 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 | Voxelwise correction based on permutation testing |
| Software | SPM12/SnPM13 |
| Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L anterior temporal |
| Findings notes | Unclear why this type of analysis was run only for semantic task, and only at T1 |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T4 vs aphasia T1 |
| Covariate | Δ BDAE complex ideation subtest |
| 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 | Voxelwise correction based on permutation testing |
| Software | SPM12/SnPM13 |
| Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs finger tapping |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T4 vs aphasia T1 |
| Covariate | Δ semantic fluency |
| 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 | Voxelwise correction based on permutation testing |
| Software | SPM12/SnPM13 |
| Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R anterior temporal |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs finger tapping |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T4 vs aphasia T1 |
| Covariate | Δ BDAE complex ideation subtest |
| 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 | Voxelwise correction based on permutation testing |
| Software | SPM12/SnPM13 |
| Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (comparisons between all pairs of time points) |
| 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? | Appear similar |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs finger tapping |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (comparisons between all pairs of time points) |
| 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 | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 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? | Appear mismatched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 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? | Appear mismatched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T3 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? | Appear mismatched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T4 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? | Appear mismatched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T5 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? | Appear mismatched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs finger tapping |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 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? | Unknown, not reported |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs finger tapping |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 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? | Unknown, not reported |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↓ LI (language network)
↓ LI (frontal) |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs finger tapping |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T3 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? | Unknown, not reported |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↓ LI (language network)
↓ LI (frontal) |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs finger tapping |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T4 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? | Unknown, not reported |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs finger tapping |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T5 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? | Unknown, not reported |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (comparisons between all pairs of time points) |
| 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? | Appear similar |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Complex |
| Statistical details | PPI analyses were carried out to investigate potential changes over time in how connectivity from L and R IFG was modulated by the semantic decision task. The resultant SPM was thresholded at FWE p < .05 using permutation testing implemented in SnPM 13. |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs finger tapping |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (comparisons between all pairs of time points) |
| 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 | Complex |
| Statistical details | PPI analyses were carried out to investigate potential changes over time in how connectivity from L and R IFG was modulated by the verb generation task. The resultant SPM was thresholded at FWE p < .05 using permutation testing implemented in SnPM 13. |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
