Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Supplementary Table S10. All analyses

AnalysisFirst level contrastSecond level contrastMatched forStatsNotesFindings
AccRT
Weiller et al. (1995):
Vox 1
Verb generation vs rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
AM UNR Vox
NDC
Behavioral data notes: in practice trials, patients produced 1.5 words on average per prompt, not all of which were verbs, while controls 2.3 words on average per prompt, almost all of which were verbs; search volume: perisylvian; software: SPM; qualitative comparison on p. 729 (the word "significant" is used) ↑ R IFG
↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
notes: based more on Figure 2 than the text
Weiller et al. (1995):
Vox 2
Pseudoword repetition vs rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
AS UNR Vox
NDC
Behavioral data notes: all participants are reported to have had no difficulties in performing the repetition task; search volume: perisylvian; software: SPM; qualitative comparison on p. 729 (the word "significant" is used) ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R IFG
↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
notes: based more on Figure 2 than the text
Belin et al. (1996):
ROI 1
Word repetition with MIT-like intonation vs word repetition CB
Aphasia
NBD UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Behavioral data notes: more words were correctly repeated with MIT (16.3 ± 8) than without (12.4 ± 8; p < 0.03); number of ROIs: 18; ROIs: (1) L Broca's area; (2) L prefrontal; (3) L sensorimotor mouth; (4) L parietal; (5) L Wernicke's area; (6) L Heschl's gyrus; (7) L anterior STG; (8) L MTG; (9) L temporal pole; (10-18) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; activation quantified as mean rCBF, not including any intersection of the infarct with the ROI; three left hemisphere ROIs were excluded (3, 6, 9) because they were completely infarcted in 4 or more patients ↑ L IFG
↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ R posterior STG
Ohyama et al. (1996):
ROI 1
Word repetition vs rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: some of the patients made a few errors, so as a group they may have been less accurate than controls; number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA; how ROIs defined: spheres around control peaks; the rCBF increase in R PIF was also significant at p < 0.005 for nonfluent patients with Fisher's protected least-significant difference ↑ R IFG
↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
Ohyama et al. (1996):
ROI 2
Word repetition vs rest CAA
Aphasia fluent (n = 10) vs non-fluent (n = 6)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA; how ROIs defined: spheres around control peaks ↓ R IFG
Ohyama et al. (1996):
ROI 3
Word repetition vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: spontaneous speech (WAB)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA; how ROIs defined: spheres around control peaks; no correction for multiple comparisons across WAB subscores ↑ L IFG
Ohyama et al. (1996):
ROI 4
Word repetition vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: comprehension (WAB)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA; how ROIs defined: spheres around control peaks; this non-significant finding is implied but not stated explicitly None
Ohyama et al. (1996):
ROI 5
Word repetition vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: repetition (WAB)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA; how ROIs defined: spheres around control peaks; this non-significant finding is implied but not stated explicitly None
Ohyama et al. (1996):
ROI 6
Word repetition vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: naming (WAB)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA; how ROIs defined: spheres around control peaks; this non-significant finding is implied but not stated explicitly None
Heiss et al. (1997):
Vox 1
Word repetition vs rest LAA
(Aphasia with good recovery (n = 3) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with poor recovery (n = 3) T2 vs T1)
Somewhat valid (TT not optimal measure of overall language function)
UNR UNR Vox
NDC
Search volume: whole brain; software: not stated; qualitative generalization across individuals on pp. 214-6 ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
notes: the consistent aspects of the findings were that there was an emergence of L posterior temporal activation in patients with better recovery, and R posterior temporal activation in patients with worse recovery
Heiss et al. (1997):
ROI 1
Word repetition vs rest LAA
(Aphasia with good recovery (n = 3) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with poor recovery (n = 3) T2 vs T1)
Somewhat valid (TT not optimal measure of overall language function)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) L superior temporal cortex; (2) R superior temporal cortex; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; activation quantified in terms of extent exceeding 10% signal change, and mean % increase over the activation; qualitative generalization across individuals on pp. 214, 216 ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↑ L Heschl's gyrus
Karbe et al. (1998):
ROI 1
Word repetition vs rest CAC
Aphasia T1 vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 8; ROIs: (1) L IFG; (2) L STG/HG; (3) L SMA; (4) L ventral precentral; (5-8) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on p. 219, but only the L SMA comparison is explicitly quantified ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L posterior STG
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
Karbe et al. (1998):
ROI 2
Word repetition vs rest CC
Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) T1 (n = 7)
Covariate: TT T1
Somewhat valid (TT not optimal measure of overall language function)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 8; ROIs: (1) L IFG; (2) L STG/HG; (3) L SMA; (4) L ventral precentral; (5-8) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images None
Karbe et al. (1998):
ROI 3
Word repetition vs rest CC
Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) T2 (n = 7)
Covariate: TT T2
Somewhat valid (TT not optimal measure of overall language function)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 8; ROIs: (1) L IFG; (2) L STG/HG; (3) L SMA; (4) L ventral precentral; (5-8) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images ↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R Heschl's gyrus
notes: more activation in patients with more severe aphasia per TT
Karbe et al. (1998):
ROI 4
Word repetition vs rest LC
Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) (n = 7) T2 vs T1
Covariate: subsequent outcome (T2) TT
Not valid (the logic behind correlating activation changes and language outcome is unclear; TT not optimal measure of overall language function)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L STG/HG; how ROI defined: individual anatomical images ↑ L posterior STG
↑ L Heschl's gyrus
notes: increase in activation for repetition was correlated with better aphasia outcome per TT
Karbe et al. (1998):
ROI 5
Word repetition vs rest CC
Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) T2 (n = 7)
Covariate: previous Δ (T2 vs T1) activation in L STG/HG
Not valid (logically problematic because patients with less severe initial aphasia would also be expected to show little L temporal increase, but would not be expected to show R temporal recruitment)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) R IFG; (2) R STG/HG; (3) R SMA; (4) R ventral precentral; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images ↓ R IFG
↓ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R Heschl's gyrus
notes: patients with more increase in L STG/HG activation showed less activation of R hemisphere regions at T2
Cao et al. (1999):
ROI 1
Picture naming vs viewing nonsense drawings CAC
Aphasia vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L IFG and MFG; (2) L pSTG, AG and SMG; (3) R IFG and MFG; (4) R pSTG, AG and SMG; (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; how ROIs defined: (1-4) individual anatomical images; activation quantified in terms of extent ↑ R IFG
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R posterior STG
↓ LI (frontal)
↓ LI (temporal)
Cao et al. (1999):
ROI 2
Picture naming vs viewing nonsense drawings CC
Aphasia
Covariate: picture naming (outside scanner)
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L IFG and MFG; (2) L pSTG, AG and SMG; (3) R IFG and MFG; (4) R pSTG, AG and SMG; (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; how ROIs defined: (1-4) individual anatomical images; activation quantified in terms of extent ↑ LI (frontal)
Heiss et al. (1999):
ROI 1
Noun repetition vs rest LA
Aphasia with subcortical damage (n = 9) T2 vs T1
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on p. 434 ↑ L mid temporal
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Heiss et al. (1999):
ROI 2
Noun repetition vs rest LA
Aphasia with frontal damage (n = 7) T2 vs T1
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on p. 434 ↑ L posterior STG
↑ L mid temporal
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Heiss et al. (1999):
ROI 3
Noun repetition vs rest LA
Aphasia with temporal damage (n = 7) T2 vs T1
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on p. 434 ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R mid temporal
↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal
Heiss et al. (1999):
ROI 4
Noun repetition vs rest CAA
Aphasia with temporal damage T1 (n = 7) vs with subcortical damage T1 (n = 9)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on p. 434 ↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L posterior STG
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R mid temporal
Heiss et al. (1999):
ROI 5
Noun repetition vs rest CAA
Aphasia with temporal damage T1 (n = 7) vs with frontal damage T1 (n = 7)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on p. 434 ↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R mid temporal
Heiss et al. (1999):
ROI 6
Noun repetition vs rest CAA
Aphasia with temporal damage T2 (n = 7) vs with subcortical damage T2 (n = 9)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on p. 434 ↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L posterior STG
↓ L mid temporal
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Heiss et al. (1999):
ROI 7
Noun repetition vs rest CAA
Aphasia with temporal damage T2 (n = 7) vs with frontal damage T2 (n = 7)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on p. 434 ↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L posterior STG
↓ L mid temporal
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Heiss et al. (1999):
ROI 8
Noun repetition vs rest CAC
Aphasia with subcortical damage T1 (n = 9) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on p. 434 ↑ R IFG pars opercularis
↓ L IFG
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
↓ L mid temporal
↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Heiss et al. (1999):
ROI 9
Noun repetition vs rest CAC
Aphasia with frontal damage T1 (n = 7) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on p. 434 ↑ R IFG pars opercularis
↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
↓ L mid temporal
↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Heiss et al. (1999):
ROI 10
Noun repetition vs rest CAC
Aphasia with temporal damage T1 (n = 7) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on p. 434; L IFG pars opercularis noted as different in text despite being significant in both groups ↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L posterior STG
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
↓ L mid temporal
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ R mid temporal
Heiss et al. (1999):
ROI 11
Noun repetition vs rest CAC
Aphasia with subcortical damage T2 (n = 9) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on p. 434 ↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
Heiss et al. (1999):
ROI 12
Noun repetition vs rest CAC
Aphasia with frontal damage T2 (n = 7) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on p. 434 ↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
Heiss et al. (1999):
ROI 13
Noun repetition vs rest CAC
Aphasia with temporal damage T2 (n = 7) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on p. 434 ↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L posterior STG
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
↓ L mid temporal
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Heiss et al. (1999):
ROI 14
Noun repetition vs rest LA
Aphasia with subcortical or frontal damage and good recovery (n = 11) T2 vs T1
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on pp. 434-5 ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L Heschl's gyrus
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Heiss et al. (1999):
ROI 15
Noun repetition vs rest LA
Aphasia with subcortical or frontal damage and poor recovery (n = 5) T2 vs T1
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on pp. 434-5 ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Heiss et al. (1999):
ROI 16
Noun repetition vs rest CAA
Aphasia with subcortical and frontal damage and good recovery T1 (n = 11) vs with subcortical and frontal damage and poor recovery T1 (n = 5)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on p. 435 ↑ L posterior STG
↑ L mid temporal
Heiss et al. (1999):
ROI 17
Noun repetition vs rest CAA
Aphasia with subcortical and frontal damage and good recovery T2 (n = 11) vs with subcortical and frontal damage and poor recovery T2 (n = 5)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NDC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images; qualitative comparison on p. 435 ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L posterior STG
↑ L Heschl's gyrus
↑ L mid temporal
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
Kessler et al. (2000):
ROI 1
Word repetition vs rest LA
Aphasia treated with pirecetam (n = 12) T2 vs T1
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L BA 44; (2) L BA 45; (3) L ventral PrCG; (4) L HG; (5) L BA 41 and 42; (6) L BA 22; (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images ↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ L posterior STG
↑ L Heschl's gyrus
Kessler et al. (2000):
ROI 2
Word repetition vs rest LA
Aphasia treated with placebo (n = 12) T2 vs T1
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L BA 44; (2) L BA 45; (3) L ventral PrCG; (4) L HG; (5) L BA 41 and 42; (6) L BA 22; (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual anatomical images ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
Rosen et al. (2000):
Vox 1
Word stem completion (PET) vs rest (PET) CAC
Aphasia vs control
N Y Vox
U
Search volume: whole brain; software: not stated; correction for multiple comparisons unclear; there may be circularity in only correcting for the number of regions that seemed to show differences ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R IFG
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ L IFG
Rosen et al. (2000):
Vox 2
Word stem completion (fMRI) vs rest (fMRI) CAC
Aphasia (n = 5) vs control
UNR UNR Vox
NDC
Search volume: whole brain; software: not stated; qualitative comparison on p. 1888 ↑ R IFG
↓ L IFG
Rosen et al. (2000):
ROI 1
Word stem completion (fMRI) vs rest (fMRI) CAC
Aphasia (n = 5) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) R IFG; (2) SMA; how ROIs defined: not stated but seem to be functional; possibly circular because not clear how ROIs defined ↑ R IFG
Blasi et al. (2002):
Vox 1
Word stem completion (novel items) vs rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
N N Vox
U
Behavioral data notes: covert task but overt data acquired separately; patients less accurate and slower than controls; search volume: whole brain; software: not stated; voxelwise p: ~.001 (z > 3); cluster extent cutoff: 45 voxels (size not stated); Monte Carlo analysis not described in detail; rather than fitting a HRF, the authors looked at the shape of the signal in the 8 volumes following each stimulus ↑ R IFG pars opercularis
↑ R IFG pars triangularis
↑ R insula
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R dorsal precentral
↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
notes: labels based on coordinates reported
Blasi et al. (2002):
ROI 1
Word stem completion (novel items) vs word stem completion (repeated items) CAC
Aphasia vs control
Y Y ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: covert task but overt data acquired separately; no interaction of group by practice for accuracy or RT; number of ROIs: 14; ROIs: (1) L dorsal IFG; (2) L ventral IFG; (3) R MFG; (4) L anterior fusiform; (5) R anterior fusiform; (6) R posterior fusiform; (7) R lateral occipital; (8) R lateral cerebellum; (9) L SMA; (10) R dorsal IFG; (11) R posterior fusiform; (12) R lateral occipital; (13) R lingual; (14) L MTG; how ROIs defined: regions that were active for the main effect of word stem completion (irrespective of practice) in either group and modulated by practice in that group; circular because ROIs defined in one group or the other; the L ROIs showed repetition suppression in controls but not in patients, and this difference is interpreted by the authors, but not supported statistically ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↓ L IFG
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
notes: labels based on coordinates reported
Leff et al. (2002):
Vox 1
Higher word rates vs lower word rates CAC
Aphasia with pSTS damage (n = 6) vs control
NANB NANT Vox
NDC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM99; qualitative comparison on p. 555; a FWE-corrected SPM is reported of the relationship in the 6 patients with L pSTS damage (Fig. 2), however it is masked in a way that is not explained (see figure caption), and there is no direct comparison between patients with L pSTS damage and controls ↑ R posterior STS
Leff et al. (2002):
Vox 2
Higher word rates vs lower word rates CAA
Aphasia with pSTS (n = 6) damage vs without pSTS damage (n = 9)
NANB NANT Vox
NDC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM99; qualitative comparison on p. 555; a FWE-corrected SPM is reported of the relationship in the 6 patients with L pSTS damage (Fig. 2), however it is masked in a way that is not explained (see figure caption), and there is no direct comparison between patients with L pSTS damage and patients with R pSTS damage ↑ R posterior STS
Leff et al. (2002):
ROI 1
Higher word rates vs lower word rates CAC
Aphasia with pSTS damage (n = 6) vs control (n = 8)
NANB NANT ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: R pSTS; how ROI defined: the peak voxel for the contrast in the R pSTS from each subject's individual analysis, but the search region is not stated; the controls and patients without pSTS damage were combined, however it is stated in the caption to Figure 2 that the patients with pSTS damage were significantly different to both ↑ R posterior STS
Leff et al. (2002):
ROI 2
Higher word rates vs lower word rates CAA
Aphasia with pSTS damage (n = 6) vs aphasia without pSTS damage (n = 9)
NANB NANT ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: R pSTS; how ROI defined: the peak voxel for the contrast in the R pSTS from each subject's individual analysis, but the search region is not stated; the controls and patients without pSTS damage were combined, however it is stated in the caption to Figure 2 that the patients with pSTS damage were significantly different to both ↑ R posterior STS
Blank et al. (2003):
Vox 1
Propositional speech production vs rest CAC
Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs control
N NANT Vox
SVC
Behavioral data notes: word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed; search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM99; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis ↑ R IFG pars opercularis
notes: no voxels survived FWE correction without SVC
Blank et al. (2003):
Vox 2
Propositional speech production vs rest CAC
Aphasia without IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs control
N NANT Vox
SVC
Behavioral data notes: word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed; search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM99; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis ↑ R IFG pars opercularis
Blank et al. (2003):
Vox 3
Propositional speech production vs rest CAA
Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs without IFG POp damage (n = 7)
N NANT Vox
SVC
Behavioral data notes: word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed; search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM99; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis None
notes: patients with L IFG POp damage showed numerically more signal in the R IFG POp
Blank et al. (2003):
Vox 4
Propositional speech production vs counting CAC
Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs control
N NANT Vox
SVC
Behavioral data notes: word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed; search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM99; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis None
Blank et al. (2003):
Vox 5
Propositional speech production vs counting CAC
Aphasia without IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs control
N NANT Vox
SVC
Behavioral data notes: word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed; search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM99; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis None
Blank et al. (2003):
Vox 6
Propositional speech production vs counting CAA
Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs without IFG POp damage (n = 7)
N NANT Vox
SVC
Behavioral data notes: word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed; search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM99; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis None
Blank et al. (2003):
ROI 1
Propositional speech production vs rest CC
Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7)
Covariate: speech rate during scan
UNR NANT ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: R IFG pars opercularis; how ROI defined: defined by flipping L IFG pars opercularis activation in controls None
Blank et al. (2003):
ROI 2
Propositional speech production vs rest CC
Aphasia without IFG POp damage (n = 7)
Covariate: speech rate during scan
UNR NANT ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: R IFG pars opercularis; how ROI defined: defined by flipping L IFG pars opercularis activation in controls None
Blank et al. (2003):
ROI 3
Propositional speech production vs rest CC
Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7)
Covariate: four different QPA measures
UNR NANT ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: R IFG pars opercularis; how ROI defined: defined by flipping L IFG pars opercularis activation in controls None
Cardebat et al. (2003):
Vox 1
Word generation vs rest LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
N UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM99; voxelwise p: .05; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated); nature of inclusive masks unclear ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L somato-motor
↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↑ L cerebellum
↑ R IFG pars opercularis
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
↑ R cerebellum
notes: based on Figure 2
Cardebat et al. (2003):
Vox 2
Word generation vs rest LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ word generation accuracy
C UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM99; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: 100 voxels (size not stated); nature of inclusive masks unclear ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
↑ R cerebellum
↓ L occipital
↓ L hippocampus/MTL
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ R occipital
Sharp et al. (2004):
Vox 1
Semantic decision vs syllable count decision CAC
Aphasia vs control (clear speech)
AM Y Vox
SVC
Behavioral data notes: interaction of group by task not reported for accuracy; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM99; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 with SVC in fusiform gyri, temporal poles, L IFG, L orbitofrontal and L SFG ↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Sharp et al. (2004):
Vox 2
Semantic decision vs syllable count decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: semantic decision accuracy
C UNR Vox
SVC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM99; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 with SVC in fusiform gyri, temporal poles, L IFG, L orbitofrontal and L SFG; fixed effects; this analysis is not clearly described ↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
notes: patients who were more accurate had more activity in R anterior fusiform gyrus
Sharp et al. (2004):
ROI 1
Semantic decision vs syllable count decision CAC
Aphasia vs control (clear speech)
AM Y ROI
Anat
One
Behavioral data notes: interaction of group by task not reported for accuracy; number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L fusiform gyrus; how ROI defined: probabilistic brain atlas ↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Sharp et al. (2004):
ROI 2
Semantic decision vs syllable count decision CAC
Aphasia vs control (noise vocoded)
NAM Y ROI
Anat
One
Behavioral data notes: patients were more accurate on semantic decisions than syllable decisions, whereas controls were less accurate on noise vocoded semantic decisions than clear syllable decisions (which were the baseline for this analysis); number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L fusiform gyrus; how ROI defined: probabilistic brain atlas None
notes: this analysis suggests that the difference between groups in the L fusiform gyrus disappears when the controls perform a semantic task that is similarly challenging
Zahn et al. (2004):
ROI 1
Semantic decision vs phonetic decision and lexical decision (conjunction) CAC
Aphasia vs control
UNT UNR ROI
LI
One
Behavioral data notes: relative performance on language and control tasks unclear; number of ROIs: 1; ROI: language network LI; conjunction analyses not clearly described; in two patients, a different conjunction was used (lexical decision vs phonetic decision & semantic decision vs phonetic decision) None
notes: LI > 0 in 12 out of 14 controls and 5 out of 7 patients; no significant difference
Crinion & Price (2005):
Vox 1
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia without temporal lobe damage (n = 9) vs control
NANB NANT Vox
VFWC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05; cluster extent cutoff: 5 voxels (size not stated) ↓ L dorsal precentral
↓ R somato-motor
Crinion & Price (2005):
Vox 2
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 8) vs control
NANB NANT Vox
VFWC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05; cluster extent cutoff: 5 voxels (size not stated) ↓ L posterior STS
↓ L mid temporal
Crinion & Price (2005):
Vox 3
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 8) vs without temporal lobe damage (n = 9)
NANB NANT Vox
VFWC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05; cluster extent cutoff: 5 voxels (size not stated) ↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L mid temporal
Crinion & Price (2005):
Vox 4
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia without temporal lobe damage (n = 9)
Covariate: sentence comprehension (CAT)
NANB NANT Vox
VFWC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05; cluster extent cutoff: 5 voxels (size not stated); conjunction with main effect of story comprehension (details hard to follow); this was a multiple regression also involving patients with temporal lobe damage ↑ L posterior STS
↑ R mid temporal
notes: patients with better sentence comprehension had more activation in the L posterior STS and R mid STS
Crinion & Price (2005):
Vox 5
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 8)
Covariate: sentence comprehension (CAT)
NANB NANT Vox
VFWC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05; cluster extent cutoff: 5 voxels (size not stated); conjunction with main effect of story comprehension (details hard to follow); this was a multiple regression also involving patients without temporal lobe damage ↑ R mid temporal
notes: patients with better sentence comprehension had more activation in the R mid STS
Crinion & Price (2005):
Cplx 1
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia with temporal damage (n = 8) vs without temporal damage (n = 9)
NANB NANT Cplx
Correlations were computed between activity in each voxel, and the sentence comprehension measure from the CAT, and were compared between the two aphasia groups, in regions with a main effect of story comprehension. The voxelwise threshold was p < .001, uncorrected for multiple comparisons. Other:
Activity in the L posterior STS was positively correlated with sentence comprehension in patients without temporal lobe damage, but not in patients with temporal lobe damage
Crinion & Price (2005):
Cplx 2
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia without temporal damage (n = 9) vs control
NANB NANT Cplx
Correlations were computed between activity in each voxel, and post-scan story recall, and were compared between patients without temporal damage and controls, in regions with a main effect of story comprehension. The threshold was p < 0.05 corrected, plus a minimum cluster size of 5 voxels. None
Crinion & Price (2005):
Cplx 3
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia with temporal damage (n = 8) vs control
NANB NANT Cplx
Correlations were computed between activity in each voxel, and post-scan story recall, and were compared between patients with temporal damage and controls, in regions with a main effect of story comprehension. The threshold was p < 0.05 corrected, plus a minimum cluster size of 5 voxels. None
Crinion & Price (2005):
Cplx 4
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia with temporal damage (n = 8) vs without temporal damage (n = 9)
NANB NANT Cplx
Correlations were computed between activity in each voxel, and post-scan story recall, and were compared between the two aphasia groups, in regions with a main effect of story comprehension. The threshold was p < 0.05 corrected, plus a minimum cluster size of 5 voxels. None
de Boissezon et al. (2005):
Vox 1
Word generation vs rest CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: time post onset
Y UNR Vox
CA
Behavioral data notes: no significant correlation between time post onset and accuracy; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L orbitofrontal
↑ L anterior temporal
↑ L occipital
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ L cerebellum
↑ R anterior temporal
↑ R occipital
notes: more activity with longer time post onset; based on coordinates in Table 3a
de Boissezon et al. (2005):
Vox 2
Word generation vs rest CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: word generation accuracy T1
C UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L precuneus
↑ L Heschl's gyrus
↑ L anterior temporal
↑ R insula
↑ R posterior STG
notes: based on coordinates in Table 3b
de Boissezon et al. (2005):
Vox 3
Word generation vs rest LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
N UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: 100 voxels (size not stated); description of masking unclear, but seems to be inclusively masked with T1, which seems inappropriate ↑ L insula
↑ L posterior STG
↑ R orbitofrontal
↑ R posterior STG
↑ R cerebellum
notes: based on coordinates in Table 2
de Boissezon et al. (2005):
Vox 4
Word generation vs rest LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ word generation accuracy
C UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 20 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L mid temporal
↑ R anterior temporal
↑ R cerebellum
notes: based on coordinates in Table 3c
Connor et al. (2006):
Vox 1
Word stem completion (novel items) vs word stem completion (repeated items) CAC
Aphasia vs control
Y Y Vox
NDC
Behavioral data notes: covert task but overt data acquired separately; no interaction of group by practice for accuracy or RT; search volume: cerebellum; software: not stated; qualitative comparison on p. 174; Monte Carlo-based thresholding not described; rather than fitting a HRF, the authors looked at the shape of the signal in the 8 volumes following each stimulus ↑ L cerebellum
↓ R cerebellum
Connor et al. (2006):
ROI 1
Word stem completion (novel items) vs word stem completion (repeated items) CAC
Aphasia vs control
Y Y ROI
Func
One
Behavioral data notes: covert task but overt data acquired separately; no interaction of group by practice for accuracy or RT; number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L cerebellum; how ROI defined: L cerebellar region with a learning effect in the patients; circular because ROIs defined in one group; rather than fitting a HRF, the authors looked at the shape of the signal in the 8 volumes following each stimulus ↑ L cerebellum
Crinion et al. (2006):
Vox 1
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia vs control
NANB NANT Vox
VFWE
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM99; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Crinion et al. (2006):
Vox 2
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia without temporal lobe damage (n = 6) vs control
NANB NANT Vox
VFWE
Search volume: voxels spared in all included patients; software: SPM99; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Crinion et al. (2006):
Vox 3
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 18) vs control
NANB NANT Vox
VFWE
Search volume: voxels spared in all included patients; software: SPM99; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Crinion et al. (2006):
ROI 1
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia with no temporal damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) or posterior temporal damage sparing anterior temporal cortex (n = 13)
Covariate: auditory sentence comprehension (CAT)
NANB NANT ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L ATL; how ROI defined: activation in the control group; same result obtained with or without excluding one outlier; two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses ↑ L anterior temporal
notes: more activity in patients with better auditory sentence comprehension
Crinion et al. (2006):
ROI 2
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia with no temporal damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) or posterior temporal damage sparing anterior temporal cortex (n = 13)
Covariate: time post onset
NANB NANT ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L ATL; how ROI defined: activation in the control group; two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses None
Crinion et al. (2006):
ROI 3
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia with temporal damage excluding anterior temporal cortex (n = 9) vs with no temporal lobe damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) (n = 4)
NANB NANT ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L ATL; how ROI defined: activation in the control group; two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses ↓ L anterior temporal
notes: patients with posterior temporal damage had less signal change
Crinion et al. (2006):
ROI 4
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia with temporal damage excluding anterior temporal cortex (n = 9) vs control
NANB NANT ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L ATL; how ROI defined: activation in the control group; circular because ROI defined in one group; two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses ↓ L anterior temporal
notes: large difference 2.7 ± 0.8 (patients) vs 6.3 ± 1.4 (controls) makes finding suggestive even in light of the circularity
Crinion et al. (2006):
ROI 5
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia with no temporal damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) or posterior temporal damage sparing anterior temporal cortex (n = 13)
Covariate: auditory single word comprehension (CAT)
NANB NANT ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L ATL; how ROI defined: activation in the control group; two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses None
notes: r = 0.39; p > 0.1; seems to be a clear trend so lack of significance may reflect only lack of power
Saur et al. (2006):
Vox 1
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
AM UNR Vox
NC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: none ↑ L insula
↑ R IFG pars orbitalis
↑ R insula
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
notes: R IFG/insula activation noted to survive FWE correction at p < .05
Saur et al. (2006):
Vox 2
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LA
Aphasia T3 vs T2
AM UNR Vox
NC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .005; cluster extent cutoff: none; threshold was lowered to reveal the R frontal change in activation ↓ R IFG pars orbitalis
↓ R occipital
Saur et al. (2006):
Vox 3
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LA
Aphasia T3 vs T1
AM UNR Vox
NC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: none ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↑ R IFG pars orbitalis
↑ R insula
Saur et al. (2006):
Vox 4
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia T1 vs control
AM UNR Vox
NC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: none ↓ L IFG pars triangularis
↓ L IFG pars orbitalis
↓ L insula
↓ L posterior MTG
↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↓ R IFG pars orbitalis
↓ R insula
notes: L STG in table is actually MTG based on coordinates
Saur et al. (2006):
Vox 5
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia T2 vs control
AM UNR Vox
NC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .005; cluster extent cutoff: none; threshold was lowered to reveal L IFG ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
↑ L insula
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R IFG
Saur et al. (2006):
Vox 6
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia T3 vs control
AS UNR Vox
NC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: none None
Saur et al. (2006):
Vox 7
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: language recovery score T1
AM UNR Vox
NC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: none ↑ L IFG
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R IFG pars triangularis
Saur et al. (2006):
Vox 8
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia T2
Covariate: language recovery score T2
UNT UNR Vox
NC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: none None
Saur et al. (2006):
Vox 9
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia T3
Covariate: language recovery score T3
UNT UNR Vox
NC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: none None
Saur et al. (2006):
Vox 10
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: % change in language recovery score
UNT UNR Vox
NC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: none ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R insula
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
Saur et al. (2006):
Vox 11
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia T3 vs T2
Covariate: % change in language recovery score
UNT UNR Vox
NC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: none None
Saur et al. (2006):
Vox 12
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia T3 vs T1
Covariate: % change in language recovery score
UNT UNR Vox
NC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: none None
Saur et al. (2006):
ROI 1
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
AM UNR ROI
Func
FWE
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L MTG; (4) R insula; (5) R IFG pars triangularis; (6) R SMA; how ROIs defined: peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients ↑ R insula
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
notes: some other ROIs also significant prior to correction for multiple comparisons; n.b. performance confound
Saur et al. (2006):
ROI 2
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LA
Aphasia T3 vs T2
AM UNR ROI
Func
FWE
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L MTG; (4) R insula; (5) R IFG pars triangularis; (6) R SMA; how ROIs defined: peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients None
notes: some other ROIs also significant prior to correction for multiple comparisons; n.b. performance confound
Saur et al. (2006):
ROI 3
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LA
Aphasia T3 vs T1
AM UNR ROI
Func
FWE
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L MTG; (4) R insula; (5) R IFG pars triangularis; (6) R SMA; how ROIs defined: peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients ↑ L posterior MTG
notes: some other ROIs also significant prior to correction for multiple comparisons; n.b. performance confound
Saur et al. (2006):
ROI 4
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia T1 vs control
AM UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L MTG; (4) R insula; (5) R IFG pars triangularis; (6) R SMA; how ROIs defined: peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients; circular because ROIs defined in one group ↓ L posterior MTG
↓ R IFG pars triangularis
notes: R IFG difference described in text but not table
Saur et al. (2006):
ROI 5
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia T2 vs control
AM UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L MTG; (4) R insula; (5) R IFG pars triangularis; (6) R SMA; how ROIs defined: peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients; circular because ROIs defined in one group None
Saur et al. (2006):
ROI 6
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia T3 vs control
AS UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy combines language and control conditions; number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L MTG; (4) R insula; (5) R IFG pars triangularis; (6) R SMA; how ROIs defined: peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients; circular because ROIs defined in one group None
Meinzer et al. (2008):
ROI 1
Picture naming (trained items) vs rest LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ picture naming (trained items)
C UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Behavioral data notes: picture naming score (trained items) increased from 51.7 ± 24.8 to 78.8 ± 22.1, which was statistically significant (p < 0.0001); number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) perilesional area of slow wave activity determined with MEG; (2) right hemisphere homotopic to lesion; (3) right hemisphere homotopic to slow wave area; (4) remainder of left hemisphere; for one patient, maximal slow wave activity was in the right hemisphere and it is not clear how this was handled; how ROIs defined: the dependent measure was the number of voxels in each ROI exceeding certain thresholds that differed across subjects depending on their strength of activation; it appears that increases and decreases may have been summed, though the description is hard to follow; 2 of the 11 patients were classified as outliers and excluded from analyses, however no plots are provided to justify their status as outliers Other:
improved picture naming of trained items was correlated with increased signal in 3 of the 4 ROIs, the exception being the right hemisphere ROI homotopic to the slow wave area; after removing the two outliers, only the correlation in the left hemisphere area of slow wave activity remained significant
Meinzer et al. (2008):
ROI 2
Picture naming (untrained items) vs rest LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ picture naming (untrained items)
C UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Behavioral data notes: picture naming score (untrained items) increased from 54.0 ± 24.3 to 70.5 ± 26.7, which was statistically significant (p= 0.002); number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) perilesional area of slow wave activity determined with MEG; (2) right hemisphere homotopic to lesion; (3) right hemisphere homotopic to slow wave area; (4) remainder of left hemisphere; for one patient, maximal slow wave activity was in the right hemisphere and it is not clear how this was handled; how ROIs defined: the dependent measure was the number of voxels in each ROI exceeding certain thresholds that differed across subjects depending on their strength of activation; it appears that increases and decreases may have been summed, though the description is hard to follow; 2 of the 11 patients were classified as outliers and excluded from analyses, however no plots are provided to justify their status as outliers Other:
improved picture naming of untrained items was correlated with increased signal in all 4 ROIs; after removing the two outliers, none of the correlations remained significant
Raboyeau et al. (2008):
Vox 1
Picture naming (native in patients; relearned foreign in controls) vs rest LAC
(Aphasia T2 vs T1) vs (control T2 vs T1)
NAM UNR Vox
CA
Behavioral data notes: relearned foreign language was an attempt to equate to recovery in patients; still, patients improved less than controls, as shown by a significant interaction of group by time (p < .0001); search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 30 voxels (size not stated); nature of control contrast not clear; negative tail of contrast was masked to exclude lesioned areas, but the mask may have been more extensive than that ↑ L orbitofrontal
Raboyeau et al. (2008):
Vox 2
Picture naming (native in patients; relearned foreign in controls) vs rest LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ picture naming accuracy
C UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 30 voxels (size not stated); nature of control contrast not clear ↑ R insula
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R orbitofrontal
↑ R anterior cingulate
↓ L intraparietal sulcus
↓ L precuneus
↓ L posterior cingulate
↓ R dorsal precentral
↓ R precuneus
Richter et al. (2008):
Vox 1
Reading words silently vs rest CAC
Aphasia T1 vs control
UNR UNR Vox
M**
Search volume: R hemisphere; software: BrainVoyager QX 1.7; voxelwise p: R IFG/R insula ROI: .005; elsewhere: .001; cluster extent cutoff: R IFG/R insula ROI: 0.108 cc; elsewhere: none ↑ R IFG
↑ R insula
Richter et al. (2008):
Vox 2
Word stem completion vs rest CAC
Aphasia T1 vs control
UNR UNR Vox
M**
Search volume: R hemisphere; software: BrainVoyager QX 1.7; voxelwise p: R IFG/R insula ROI: .005; elsewhere: .001; cluster extent cutoff: R IFG/R insula ROI: 0.108 cc; elsewhere: none ↑ R dorsal precentral
Richter et al. (2008):
Vox 3
Reading words silently vs rest CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility)
Somewhat valid (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
UNR UNR Vox
NC
Search volume: R hemisphere; software: BrainVoyager QX 1.7; voxelwise p: .05; cluster extent cutoff: none; nature of thresholding not entirely clear, so coded according to best guess ↑ R IFG
↑ R insula
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R posterior MTG
notes: increased activity correlated with more behavioral improvement
Richter et al. (2008):
Vox 4
Word stem completion vs rest CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility)
Somewhat valid (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
UNR UNR Vox
NC
Search volume: R hemisphere; software: BrainVoyager QX 1.7; voxelwise p: .05; cluster extent cutoff: none; nature of thresholding not entirely clear, so coded according to best guess ↑ R IFG
↑ R insula
notes: increased activity correlated with more behavioral improvement
Richter et al. (2008):
Vox 5
Reading words silently vs rest LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
UNR UNR Vox
M**
Search volume: R hemisphere; software: BrainVoyager QX 1.7; voxelwise p: R IFG/R insula ROI: .005; elsewhere: .001; cluster extent cutoff: R IFG/R insula ROI: 0.108 cc; elsewhere: none None
Richter et al. (2008):
Vox 6
Word stem completion vs rest LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
UNR UNR Vox
M**
Search volume: R hemisphere; software: BrainVoyager QX 1.7; voxelwise p: R IFG/R insula ROI: .005; elsewhere: .001; cluster extent cutoff: R IFG/R insula ROI: 0.108 cc; elsewhere: none None
Richter et al. (2008):
ROI 1
Reading words silently vs rest CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility)
Somewhat valid (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L IFG/insula or L perilesional; how ROI defined: peak activations in individual patients in L IFG/insula or L perilesional regions (somewhat unclear) None
Richter et al. (2008):
ROI 2
Word stem completion vs rest CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility)
Somewhat valid (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L IFG/insula or L perilesional; how ROI defined: peak activations in individual patients in L IFG/insula or L perilesional regions (somewhat unclear) None
Richter et al. (2008):
ROI 3
Reading words silently vs rest LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) R IFG/insula; (2) R precentral; (3) R MTG; (4) L IFG/insula or L perilesional; how ROIs defined: regions where T1 activation was correlated with subsequent improvement, along with the previously defined left hemisphere ROI; circular because functional ROIs based on related contrast on same data ↓ R posterior MTG
notes: decreased activity over time correlated with more behavioral improvement
Richter et al. (2008):
ROI 4
Word stem completion vs rest LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1, 2) two clusters within R IFG/insula ROI; (3) L IFG/insula or L perilesional; how ROIs defined: regions where T1 activation was correlated with subsequent improvement, along with the previously defined left hemisphere ROI; circular because functional ROIs based on related contrast on same data ↓ R IFG
↓ R insula
notes: decreased activity over time correlated with more behavioral improvement
de Boissezon et al. (2009):
Vox 1
Word generation vs rest LA
Aphasia with "good recovery" (n = 6) T2 vs T1
Somewhat valid (the "good recovery" group showed more improvement than the "poor recovery" group in terms of accuracy on the task, but the distinction was not borne out in behavioral data more generally)
Y UNR Vox
CA
Behavioral data notes: p = 0.07; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: 100 voxels (size not stated); contrast may not have included resting condition; inappropriate masking ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R occipital
↑ R thalamus
↑ R basal ganglia
↓ L cerebellum
notes: based on coordinates in Table 5
de Boissezon et al. (2009):
Vox 2
Word generation vs rest LA
Aphasia with "poor recovery" (n = 7) T2 vs T1
Somewhat valid (the "poor recovery" group showed less improvement than the "good recovery" group in terms of accuracy on the task, but the distinction was not borne out in behavioral data more generally)
Y UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: 100 voxels (size not stated); contrast may not have included resting condition; inappropriate masking ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R cerebellum
↓ R basal ganglia
de Boissezon et al. (2009):
Vox 3
Word generation vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: word generation accuracy
C UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 100 voxels (size not stated); each patient's two sessions may be entered into the model without accounting for the dependence between them ↑ L supramarginal gyrus
↑ L occipital
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R insula
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R posterior STG
↑ R anterior temporal
↑ R occipital
↓ L cerebellum
Fridriksson et al. (2009):
Vox 1
Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images CAC
Aphasia vs control
YCT UNR Vox
C-
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: FSL (FEAT 5.4); voxelwise p: ~.01 (z > 2.3); cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT None
Fridriksson et al. (2009):
Vox 2
Picture naming (phonemic paraphasias) vs picture naming (correct trials) CB
Aphasia
NBD UNR Vox
C-
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: FSL (FEAT 5.4); voxelwise p: ~.01 (z > 2.3); cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT ↑ L superior parietal
↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↑ L occipital
Fridriksson et al. (2009):
Vox 3
Picture naming (semantic paraphasias) vs picture naming (correct trials) CB
Aphasia
NBD UNR Vox
C-
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: FSL (FEAT 5.4); voxelwise p: ~.01 (z > 2.3); cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT ↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↑ R occipital
Fridriksson et al. (2009):
ROI 1
Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images CC
Aphasia
Covariate: picture naming accuracy
YCT UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 5; ROIs: (1) R IFG/insula; (2) R motor/premotor; (3) R SMA; (4) R inferior parietal; (5) R superior temporal; how ROIs defined: regions activated for picture naming vs viewing scrambled images in aphasia ↑ R IFG
↑ R insula
notes: R IFG showed more activation in patients who produced more correct responses
Menke et al. (2009):
Vox 1
Picture naming (trained items) vs rest LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: subsequent outcome (T2) picture naming of trained items outside the scanner
Not valid (the logic behind correlating activation changes and language outcome is unclear)
UNT UNR Vox
M**
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .05, but at least one voxel in the cluster had to be p < .001; cluster extent cutoff: 0.270 cc; there was an exclusive mask based on activation changes for untrained pictures, but it is unclear what the behavioral covariate was for the mask generation, nor were the regions in the mask reported ↑ L occipital
↑ L hippocampus/MTL
↑ R precuneus
↑ R occipital
↑ R posterior cingulate
↑ R hippocampus/MTL
Menke et al. (2009):
Vox 2
Picture naming (untrained items) vs rest LC
Aphasia T3 vs T1
Covariate: subsequent outcome (T3) picture naming of trained items outside the scanner
Not valid (the logic behind correlating activation changes and language outcome is unclear)
UNT UNR Vox
M**
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; voxelwise p: .05, but at least one voxel in the cluster had to be p < .001; cluster extent cutoff: 0.270 cc; there was an exclusive mask based on activation changes for untrained pictures, but it is unclear what the behavioral covariate was for the mask generation, nor were the regions in the mask reported ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R inferior parietal lobule
↓ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↓ R basal ganglia
Specht et al. (2009):
Vox 1
Lexical decision (words vs pseudowords) vs lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words) CAC
Aphasia vs control
UNR UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM5; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: 0.64 cc ↑ R posterior STG
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
notes: activation is 1105 voxels (> 8 cc) so quite convincing, but when the contrast was examined in the patient group, this region was not activated.
Specht et al. (2009):
Cplx 1
Lexical decision (words vs pseudowords) vs lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words) CAC
Aphasia vs control
UNR UNR Cplx
Joint ICA was performed on structural and functional contrast images using FIT 1.1b. Only 1 of the 8 components differed between groups in its loadings and was interpretable. The structural part of this component related to the patients' lesions. The functional part was thresholded at voxelwise p < .001 (CDT), arbitrary minimum cluster extent = 0.64 cc. Other:
The component that differed between groups showed more activation for patients than controls in the L anterior temporal lobe, L cerebellum, R posterior STG, R anterior temporal lobe, R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus, R cerebellum, and R brainstem, and less activation in patients than controls in the L IFG, L anterior temporal lobe, L occipital lobe, L anterior cingulate, L cerebellum, L thalamus, and R IFG.
Warren et al. (2009):
ROI 1
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia vs control
NANB NANT ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6); somewhat circular because ROIs were defined only in regions where controls showed significant connectivity (even though ROIs were anatomical) None
notes: L IFG pars triangularis almost reached significance (p = .053) for more activation in patients
Warren et al. (2009):
ROI 2
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia
Covariate: auditory sentence comprehension
NANB NANT ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) ↑ L anterior temporal
Warren et al. (2009):
ROI 3
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia
Covariate: written sentence comprehension
NANB NANT ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) None
Warren et al. (2009):
ROI 4
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia
Covariate: auditory single word comprehension
NANB NANT ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) None
notes: L anterior temporal p = .08
Warren et al. (2009):
ROI 5
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia
Covariate: auditory syntactic comprehension
NANB NANT ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) None
notes: L anterior temporal p = .09
Warren et al. (2009):
ROI 6
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia
Covariate: connectivity between L and R ATL
NANB NANT ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) R anterior superior temporal cortex; how ROIs defined: ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) None
Warren et al. (2009):
ROI 7
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia
Covariate: time post onset
NANB NANT ROI
Anat
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L anterior superior temporal cortex; how ROI defined: ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) None
Warren et al. (2009):
ROI 8
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia
Covariate: lesion volume
NANB NANT ROI
Anat
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L anterior superior temporal cortex; how ROI defined: ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) None
Warren et al. (2009):
ROI 9
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia with positive anterior temporal interconnectivity (n = 8) vs control
NANB NANT ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6); somewhat circular because ROIs were defined only in regions where controls showed significant connectivity (even though ROIs were anatomical); excluded 3 patients with L IFG damage ↑ L IFG pars triangularis
Warren et al. (2009):
ROI 10
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia with negative anterior temporal interconnectivity (n = 8) vs control
NANB NANT ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6); somewhat circular because ROIs were defined only in regions where controls showed significant connectivity (even though ROIs were anatomical); excluded 1 patient with L IFG damage None
Warren et al. (2009):
ROI 11
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia with positive anterior temporal interconnectivity (n = 8) vs with negative anterior temporal interconnectivity (n = 8)
NANB NANT ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6); excluded 4 patients with L IFG damage ↑ L IFG pars triangularis
Warren et al. (2009):
Cplx 1
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia
Covariate: lesion status of each voxel
NANB NANT Cplx
VLSM with FDR correction was used to identify any regions in which damage was predictive of L anterior temporal activation. None
Chau et al. (2010):
Vox 1
Answering questions from Cantonese Aphasia Battery vs visual decision LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ WAB AQ
Somewhat valid (no treatment effect)
UNR UNR Vox
U
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM2; stated to be corrected p < 0.05, but the nature of correction is not described; it is not entirely clear whether the functional measure was the difference between T1 and T2 (we assume it is); it is also not clear whether or not 2 patients with low AQ were excluded (we assume not) ↑ L posterior MTG
notes: finding based on table; additional small activations are shown in figure but not table
Fridriksson (2010):
Vox 1
Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ picture naming accuracy
YCT UNR Vox
C-
Search volume: whole brain; software: FSL 4.1; voxelwise p: ~.01 (z > 2.3); cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ L supramarginal gyrus
↑ L intraparietal sulcus
↑ L superior parietal
↑ L precuneus
notes: activated regions were on the borders on the lesion distribution in the 19 included patients
Fridriksson et al. (2010):
Vox 1
Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures CC
Aphasia
Covariate: picture naming accuracy
YCT UNR Vox
C-
Search volume: whole brain; software: FSL 4.1; voxelwise p: ~.02 (z > 2); cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
↑ L occipital
↑ L anterior cingulate
notes: greater activation was associated with better picture naming; L IFG pars orbitalis activation classified as middle frontal gyrus in the paper, but coordinates suggest otherwise
Fridriksson et al. (2010):
Vox 2
Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures CAC
Aphasia vs control
YCT UNR Vox
C-
Search volume: whole brain; software: FSL 4.1; voxelwise p: ~.02 (z > 2); cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT None
Fridriksson et al. (2010):
ROI 1
Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures CC
Aphasia
Covariate: picture naming accuracy
YCT UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: a single ROI comprising 3 regions where activation in patients was correlated with picture naming accuracy: the L IFG pars orbitalis, occipital lobe, and anterior cingulate; how ROI defined: based on SPM analysis 1; the purpose of this analysis was to determine whether these regions were recruited in the patients with better naming, or not activated in the patients with worse naming, relative to the control mean Other:
patients with better naming showed greater activation than controls, while the patients with poorer naming showed less activation than controls.
Fridriksson et al. (2010):
Cplx 1
Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures CC
Aphasia
Covariate: lesion status of each voxel
YCT UNR Cplx
VLSM was used to identify any regions in which damage was predictive of activation in the regions identified in SPM analysis 1, considered as a single ROI. There was no correction for multiple comparisons, and the analysis is appropriately presented as exploratory. Other:
Only in the L IFG pars opercularis was damage predictive of reduced activation in the potentially compensatory network.
Sharp et al. (2010):
ROI 1
Semantic decision (clear in patients; average of clear and noise vocoded in controls) vs syllable count decision (clear in patients; average of clear and noise vocoded in controls) CAC
Aphasia vs control
NAM AS ROI
Oth
NDC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy and RT were not significantly different for the semantic task; statistics are not reported for the syllable counting task, but the data provided suggest that accuracy was probably not matched, while RT probably was; number of ROIs: 12; ROIs: functional connectivity between pairs of spared nodes of the L hemisphere semantic network and R hemisphere homotopic regions: (1) L SFG-L AG; (2) L SFG-L IFG; (3) L SFG-L IT; (4) L AG-L IFG; (5) L AG-L IT; (6) L IFG-L IT; (7-12) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: partial correlations between nodes Other:
patients showed greater connectivity between L SFG and L AG than controls while performing the semantic task; this was not the case for the syllable counting task, however connectivity during performance of the two tasks was not compared directly
Thompson et al. (2010):
ROI 1
Auditory sentence-picture matching (all three sentence types) vs rest LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
AS AS ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 18; ROIs: (1) L BA 7; (2) L BA 9; (3) L BA 13; (4) L BA 21; (5) L BA 22; (6) L BA 39; (7) L BA 40; (8) L BA 44; (9) L BA 45; (10-18) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas; proportion of patients who showed increases and decreases in (parts of) each ROI in individual fixed effects SPM analyses ↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L superior parietal
↑ L mid temporal
↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R superior parietal
↓ L insula
↓ L posterior STG
notes: these are the regions involved in what the authors interpret as a "general shift"
Tyler et al. (2010):
Vox 1
Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word CAC
Aphasia vs control
UNR AS Vox
NDC
Behavioral data notes: the two groups showed similar differences between RTs in the two conditions of the contrast; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM5; qualitative comparison on pp. 3402-3; each group is presented at voxelwise p < .005 (CDT), cluster-corrected p < .05 with GRFT ↑ R IFG pars triangularis
↑ R IFG pars orbitalis
↓ L posterior MTG
notes: several other potential differences are apparent in the figure, but only the differences tabulated are interpreted in the text
Tyler et al. (2010):
ROI 1
Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word CC
Aphasia
Covariate: RT difference between early and late targets on grammatical but meaningless sentences (a measure of syntactic processing)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
One
Behavioral data notes: analyses focuses on RT differences between early and late targets, not on mean RT per se; number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis; how ROI defined: activated for the same contrast ↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
notes: L IFG showed more activation in patients that had a larger target position effect (indicative of better syntactic processing)
Tyler et al. (2010):
ROI 2
Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word CC
Aphasia
Covariate: RT difference between early and late targets on normal sentences
UNR UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis; how ROI defined: activated for the same contrast None
Tyler et al. (2010):
ROI 3
Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word CC
Aphasia
Covariate: RT difference between early and late targets on scrambled sentences
UNR UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis; how ROI defined: activated for the same contrast None
Tyler et al. (2010):
ROI 4
Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word CC
Aphasia
Covariate: damage to L IFG, estimated from T1 signal
UNR UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: R IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis; how ROI defined: activated for the same contrast None
notes: no correlation (p = .57)
Tyler et al. (2010):
ROI 5
Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word CC
Aphasia
Covariate: syntactic processing (presumably the target position effect, though this is not stated)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: R IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis; how ROI defined: activated for the same contrast None
notes: no correlation (p = .41)
Tyler et al. (2010):
Cplx 1
Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word CC
Aphasia
Covariate: lesion status of each voxel
UNR UNR Cplx
VBM was used to identify any regions where damage was predictive of activation in the L IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis. Tissue integrity was quantified in terms of T1 signal. Clusterwise correction was used, which is not appropriate for VBM. Other:
Only in the L IFG itself was damage predictive of reduced activation in the L IFG.
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 1
Written word-picture matching vs visual decision CAC
Aphasia vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy not reported for control condition; number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI; how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas ↓ L IFG
↓ LI (language network)
↓ LI (frontal)
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 2
Semantic decision vs visual decision CAC
Aphasia vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: accuracy not reported for control condition; number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI; how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas ↓ L IFG
↓ LI (language network)
↓ LI (frontal)
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 3
Verb generation vs rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI; how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas ↓ L IFG
↓ LI (language network)
↓ LI (frontal)
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 4
Written word-picture matching vs visual decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: picture-word matching accuracy
C UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI; how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas None
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 5
Semantic decision vs visual decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: semantic decision accuracy
C UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI; how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas None
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 6
Written word-picture matching vs visual decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: overall language measure
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI; how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas None
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 7
Semantic decision vs visual decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: overall language measure
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI; how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas; not clear if it was LI for whole language network ↑ LI (language network)
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 8
Verb generation vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: overall language measure
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI; how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas None
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 9
Written word-picture matching vs visual decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: lesion volume
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas None
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 10
Semantic decision vs visual decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: lesion volume
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas None
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 11
Verb generation vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: lesion volume
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas None
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 12
Written word-picture matching vs visual decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: damage to L hemisphere language regions
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas None
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 13
Semantic decision vs visual decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: damage to L hemisphere language regions
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas None
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 14
Verb generation vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: damage to L hemisphere language regions
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas None
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 15
Written word-picture matching vs visual decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: previous (current vs subacute) Δ naming
Not valid (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI; how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas None
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 16
Semantic decision vs visual decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: previous (current vs subacute) Δ naming
Not valid (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI; how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas ↑ L IFG
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 17
Verb generation vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: previous (current vs subacute) Δ naming
Not valid (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI; how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas ↑ L IFG
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 18
Written word-picture matching vs visual decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: previous (current vs subacute) Δ TT
Not valid (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function; TT not optimal measure of overall language function)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI; how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas None
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 19
Semantic decision vs visual decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: previous (current vs subacute) Δ TT
Not valid (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function; TT not optimal measure of overall language function)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI; how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas ↑ L IFG
↑ R IFG
van Oers et al. (2010):
ROI 20
Verb generation vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: previous (current vs subacute) Δ TT
Not valid (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function; TT not optimal measure of overall language function)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 7; ROIs: (1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI; how ROIs defined: WFU pickatlas ↑ L IFG
↑ R IFG
Papoutsi et al. (2011):
Vox 1
Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") CC
Aphasia
Covariate: difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between subordinate and dominant sentences (dominance effect)
NANB NANT Vox
C-
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT ↑ L insula
↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↑ L mid temporal
Papoutsi et al. (2011):
Cplx 1
Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") CC
Aphasia
Covariate: modulation of L IFG connectivity by dominance effect
NANB NANT Cplx
A PPI analysis was carried out with the L IFG as the seed region. Correlations were computed between voxelwise modulation of connectivity with this region, and a behavioral measure of syntactic processing, which was the dominance effect: the difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between subordinate and dominant sentences. The resultant SPM was thresholded at voxelwise p < .01 (CDT), then corrected for multiple corrections based on cluster extent and GRFT using SPM8. Other:
patients with better syntactic performance had more connectivity from the L IFG seed region to L pMTG and adjacent areas (including the insula); pMTG also significant at voxelwise p < .001 in Figure 2B, corrected for multiple comparisons with GRFT
Papoutsi et al. (2011):
Cplx 2
Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") CC
Aphasia
Covariate: modulation of L pMTG connectivity by dominance effect
NANB NANT Cplx
A similar PPI analysis was carried out with the L pMTG as the seed region. Thresholding was the same as in the previous analysis. None
Sebastian & Kiran (2011):
ROI 1
Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "pass" CC
Aphasia
Covariate: lesion volume
YCT UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L IFG (oper/tri); (2) L posterior perisylvian (pSTG, pMTG, AG, SMG); (3) R IFG (oper/tri); (4) R posterior perisylvian (pSTG, pMTG, AG, SMG); (5) language network LI; how ROIs defined: Harvard–Oxford atlas ↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ LI (language network)
notes: larger lesions were associated with more R posterior perisylvian activation
Sebastian & Kiran (2011):
ROI 2
Semantic decision (correct trials) vs visual decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: lesion volume
YCT UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L IFG (oper/tri); (2) L posterior perisylvian (pSTG, pMTG, AG, SMG); (3) R IFG (oper/tri); (4) R posterior perisylvian (pSTG, pMTG, AG, SMG); (5) language network LI; how ROIs defined: Harvard–Oxford atlas None
Szaflarski et al. (2011):
Vox 1
Semantic decision vs tone decision LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Somewhat valid (patients improved only on semantic fluency)
Y UNR Vox
NC
Behavioral data notes: language and control tasks both matched; search volume: whole brain; software: in-house; voxelwise p: .05; cluster extent cutoff: none; the figure shows a cutoff of z > 10, which would not correspond to p < .05; increases and decreases in Figure 3 do not accord with the data from T1 and T2 in Figure 2, raising concerns about the implementation of the analyses; there is no explicit description of the second level analysis ↑ L IFG
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L orbitofrontal
↑ L inferior parietal lobule
↑ L supramarginal gyrus
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L precuneus
↑ L occipital
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ L basal ganglia
↑ L hippocampus/MTL
↑ R dorsal precentral
↑ R precuneus
↑ R occipital
↑ R basal ganglia
↑ R hippocampus/MTL
↓ R insula
↓ R supramarginal gyrus
↓ R posterior STG
notes: based on a combination of coordinates in Table 2, and Figure 3
Szaflarski et al. (2011):
ROI 1
Semantic decision vs tone decision LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Somewhat valid (patients improved only on semantic fluency)
Y UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: language and control tasks both matched; number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporal LI; (3) language network LI; T1 LI (temporal) is reported to be negative, which does not accord with the voxelwise analysis in Figure 2; increases and decreases in Figure 3 do not accord with the data from T1 and T2 in Figure 2, raising concerns about the implementation of the analyses ↑ LI (language network)
↑ LI (frontal)
↑ LI (temporal)
Tyler et al. (2011):
Vox 1
Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") CAC
Aphasia vs control
NANB NANT Vox
NDC
Search volume: plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions; software: SPM5; qualitative comparison on p. 423 ↓ L IFG
Tyler et al. (2011):
Vox 2
Listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") CAC
Aphasia vs control
NANB NANT Vox
NDC
Search volume: plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions; software: SPM5; qualitative comparison on p. 423 ↓ L IFG
Tyler et al. (2011):
Vox 3
Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") CAC
Aphasia vs control
NANB NANT Vox
NDC
Search volume: plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions; software: SPM5; qualitative comparison on p. 423 ↓ L IFG
notes: lack of patient activation in pMTG implied in text, but this activation looks fairly similar in patients and controls (c.f. Figure 3C vs 2C)
Tyler et al. (2011):
Vox 4
Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") CAC
Aphasia vs control
NANB NANT Vox
NDC
Search volume: plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions; software: SPM5; qualitative comparison on p. 423 ↓ L IFG
↓ L posterior MTG
Tyler et al. (2011):
Vox 5
Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") CC
Aphasia
Covariate: performance on acceptability judgment task (difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between ambiguous and unambiguous sentences)
NANB NANT Vox
C-
Search volume: plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions; software: SPM5; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT ↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
↑ R insula
↑ R mid temporal
notes: also L pMTG but this did not reach significance
Tyler et al. (2011):
Vox 6
Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") CC
Aphasia
Covariate: performance on sentence-picture matching task
NANB NANT Vox
CA
Search volume: plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions; software: SPM5; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 30 (units not stated) ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
↑ L posterior MTG
↑ R insula
↑ R posterior STG
↑ R mid temporal
Tyler et al. (2011):
Vox 7
Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") CC
Aphasia
Covariate: performance on word monitoring task
NANB NANT Vox
CA
Search volume: plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions; software: SPM5; voxelwise p: .05; cluster extent cutoff: 10 (units not stated) ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
↑ L posterior MTG
↑ R insula
↑ R mid temporal
Tyler et al. (2011):
Vox 8
Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") CC
Aphasia
Covariate: difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between subordinate and dominant sentences (dominance effect)
NANB NANT Vox
C-
Search volume: plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions; software: SPM5; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT None
Tyler et al. (2011):
ROI 1
Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") CC
Aphasia
Covariate: performance on acceptability judgment task (difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between ambiguous and unambiguous sentences)
NANB NANT ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) IFG pars opercularis; (2) IFG pars triangularis; (3) IFG pars orbitalis; how ROIs defined: AAL ↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
Tyler et al. (2011):
ROI 2
Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") CC
Aphasia
Covariate: difference in percentage of unacceptable judgments between subordinate and dominant sentences (dominance effect)
NANB NANT ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) IFG pars opercularis; (2) IFG pars triangularis; (3) IFG pars orbitalis; how ROIs defined: AAL None
Weiduschat et al. (2011):
ROI 1
Verb generation vs rest LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1 (regardless of rTMS)
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) IFG LI; (2) superior temporal LI; (3) SMA LI None
Weiduschat et al. (2011):
ROI 2
Verb generation vs rest LA
Aphasia treated with rTMS (n = 6) T2 vs T1
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) IFG LI; (2) superior temporal LI; (3) SMA LI None
Weiduschat et al. (2011):
ROI 3
Verb generation vs rest LAA
(Aphasia with R IFG rTMS (n = 6) T2 vs T1) vs (with sham rTMS (n = 4) T2 vs T1)
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) IFG LI; (2) superior temporal LI; (3) SMA LI ↑ LI (frontal)
notes: IFG LI was stable in the stimulation group, but shifted to the R in the sham group, yielding a significant difference between groups
Weiduschat et al. (2011):
ROI 4
Verb generation vs rest LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1 (regardless of rTMS)
Covariate: Δ AAT total score
UNR UNR ROI
LI
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: IFG LI None
Allendorfer et al. (2012):
ROI 1
Verb generation (covert, block) vs finger tapping (block) CAC
Aphasia vs control
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporal LI ↓ LI (temporal)
Allendorfer et al. (2012):
ROI 2
Verb generation (overt, event-related) vs noun repetition (event-related) CAC
Aphasia vs control
N UNR ROI
LI
NC
Behavioral data notes: patients less accurate and produced less responses on both conditions, but the difference between groups was greater for verb generation; number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporal LI ↓ LI (frontal)
Allendorfer et al. (2012):
ROI 3
Verb generation (overt, event-related) vs verb generation (covert, event-related) CAC
Aphasia vs control
N UNR ROI
LI
NC
Behavioral data notes: overt performance differed, so covert performance probably did too; number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporal LI None
notes: lack of lateralization in controls makes this analysis difficult to interpret
Allendorfer et al. (2012):
ROI 4
Verb generation (overt, event-related) vs noun repetition (event-related) CC
Aphasia
Covariate: overt verb generation accuracy
C UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) L MTG; (2) L SFG/CG; (3) left MFG; how ROIs defined: regions activated by the contrast of overt verb generation vs noun repetition in patients ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
Allendorfer et al. (2012):
ROI 5
Verb generation (overt, event-related) vs verb generation (covert, event-related) CC
Aphasia
Covariate: overt verb generation accuracy
C UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) R insula/IFG; (2) R STG; how ROIs defined: prominent R hemisphere activations for the contrast of overt and covert verb generation in patients None
Fridriksson et al. (2012a):
Vox 1
Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences CAC
Aphasia T1 vs control
UNR NANT Vox
U
Search volume: whole brain; software: FSL (FEAT 5.98); thresholding not stated ↑ L angular gyrus
↓ L anterior temporal
notes: based on coordinates in Table 2
Fridriksson et al. (2012a):
Vox 2
Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs rest LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
UNR NANT Vox
U
Search volume: whole brain; software: FSL (FEAT 5.98); thresholding not stated ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R precuneus
↑ R occipital
↑ R hippocampus/MTL
↓ L supramarginal gyrus
notes: some labels changed based on coordinates
Fridriksson et al. (2012a):
Vox 3
Listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences vs rest LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
UNR NANT Vox
U
Search volume: whole brain; software: FSL (FEAT 5.98); thresholding not stated None
Fridriksson et al. (2012a):
Vox 4
Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouth vs rest LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
NANB NANT Vox
U
Search volume: whole brain; software: FSL (FEAT 5.98); thresholding not stated None
Fridriksson et al. (2012a):
ROI 1
Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences CAC
Aphasia T1 vs control
UNR NANT ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L anterior insula/IFG pars orbitalis; (2) R anterior insula/IFG pars orbitalis; (3) Broca's area; (4) L MTG; (5) L BA 37; (6) R BA 37; how ROIs defined: regions activated in both groups considered together; there were no interactions of group by condition; two regions showed main effects of group but this is not pertinent to the contrast None
Fridriksson et al. (2012b):
ROI 1
Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ picture naming accuracy
C UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions; how ROIs defined: based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming Other:
change in perilesional non-language regions positively correlated with improvement in accuracy
Fridriksson et al. (2012b):
ROI 2
Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ (decrease in) semantic errors
UNR UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions; how ROIs defined: based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming Other:
change in undamaged non-perilesional language regions negatively correlated with decrease in semantic errors
Fridriksson et al. (2012b):
ROI 3
Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ (decrease in) phonological paraphasias
UNR UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions; how ROIs defined: based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming Other:
change in perilesional language regions, and change in undamaged non-perilesional language regions, negatively correlated with decrease in phonological paraphasias
Fridriksson et al. (2012b):
ROI 4
Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) picture naming accuracy
Somewhat valid (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
UNR UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions; how ROIs defined: based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming None
Fridriksson et al. (2012b):
ROI 5
Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1, decrease in) semantic errors
Somewhat valid (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
UNR UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions; how ROIs defined: based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming Other:
change in perilesional language regions correlated with decrease in phonological paraphasias
Fridriksson et al. (2012b):
ROI 6
Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1, decrease in) phonological paraphasias
Somewhat valid (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
UNR UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions; how ROIs defined: based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming None
Marcotte et al. (2012):
Vox 1
Picture naming (T1: known items; T2: trained items; correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba" LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
YCT UNR Vox
NDC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM5; qualitative comparison on p. 1780; different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained ↑ L supramarginal gyrus
↓ L dorsal precentral
↓ L posterior MTG
notes: labels based on figures rather than text
Marcotte et al. (2012):
Vox 2
Picture naming (known items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba" CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) naming of trained items
Somewhat valid (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
YCT UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM5; voxelwise p: .005; cluster extent cutoff: 10 voxels (size not stated); different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L somato-motor
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R thalamus
notes: labels based on figures and text
Marcotte et al. (2012):
Vox 3
Picture naming (trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba" CC
Aphasia T2
Covariate: previous Δ (T2 vs T1) naming of trained items
Not valid (T2 activation not an appropriate measure of treatment-induced recovery because it reflects T2 performance)
YCT UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM5; voxelwise p: .005; cluster extent cutoff: 10 voxels (size not stated); different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained ↑ L somato-motor
notes: label based on figure
Schofield et al. (2012):
Vox 1
Listening to word pairs or reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment vs rest CAC
Moderate aphasia (n = 11) vs control
UNR UNR Vox
NC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: none ↓ L Heschl's gyrus
notes: structurally, HG was not significantly damaged in this group
Schofield et al. (2012):
Vox 2
Listening to word pairs or reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment vs rest CAC
Severe aphasia (n = 9) vs control
UNR UNR Vox
M**
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: MGB: SVC; elsewhere: .001; cluster extent cutoff: none ↓ L posterior STG
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
↓ L thalamus
notes: specifically: PT, HG and MGB; structurally, the PT and HG were significantly damaged, but not the MGB
Schofield et al. (2012):
Vox 3
Listening to word pairs or reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment vs rest CAA
Severe (n = 9) vs moderate (n = 11) aphasia
UNR UNR Vox
NC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: none ↓ L posterior STG
notes: specifically, PT; structurally, severe patients had more damage in HG and PT
Wright et al. (2012):
Vox 1
Listening to normal sentences and detecting a target word vs rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
Y UNR Vox
NC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM5; voxelwise p: .01 ↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
↓ L mid temporal
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
Wright et al. (2012):
Cplx 1
Listening to normal sentences and detecting a target word vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: see statistical details
UNR UNR Cplx
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. Other:
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").
Wright et al. (2012):
Cplx 2
Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: see statistical details
UNR UNR Cplx
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. Other:
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").
Szaflarski et al. (2013):
Vox 1
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAA
Aphasia not recovered (n = 18) vs recovered (n = 9)
AM UNR Vox
CCS
Behavioral data notes: interaction of group by condition not reported; non-recovered patients were significantly less accurate only on the semantic decision condition, but they actually showed a smaller difference between conditions than the recovered patients; search volume: whole brain; software: AFNI; voxelwise p: .05; cluster extent cutoff: 4.16 cc; cluster-defining threshold (CDT) p < 0.05 too lenient ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L superior parietal
↑ L cerebellum
↑ R cerebellum
↓ R posterior STG
Szaflarski et al. (2013):
ROI 1
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
Covariate: BNT
UNR UNR ROI
Func
FWE
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus; how ROIs defined: regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs; circular because defined based on recovered status ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Szaflarski et al. (2013):
ROI 2
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
Covariate: semantic fluency
UNR UNR ROI
Func
FWE
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus; how ROIs defined: regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs; circular because defined based on recovered status ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Szaflarski et al. (2013):
ROI 3
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
Covariate: single word comprehension (PPVT)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
FWE
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus; how ROIs defined: regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs; circular because defined based on recovered status ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Szaflarski et al. (2013):
ROI 4
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
Covariate: BDAE complex ideation subtest
UNR UNR ROI
Func
FWE
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus; how ROIs defined: regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs; circular because defined based on recovered status ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Szaflarski et al. (2013):
ROI 5
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
Covariate: phonemic fluency
UNR UNR ROI
Func
FWE
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus; how ROIs defined: regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs; circular because defined based on recovered status ↓ R posterior STG
Szaflarski et al. (2013):
ROI 6
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
Covariate: semantic decision accuracy
C UNR ROI
Func
FWE
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus; how ROIs defined: regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs; circular because defined based on recovered status None
Thiel et al. (2013):
Vox 1
Verb generation vs rest LAA
(Aphasia with rTMS (n = 13) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with sham (n = 11) T2 vs T1)
UNR UNR Vox
NDC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; qualitative comparison on p. 2244 ↑ L IFG
↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ R IFG
↓ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
notes: approximate interpretation of qualitative patterns shown in Figure 3; T1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group
Thiel et al. (2013):
ROI 1
Verb generation vs rest LAA
(Aphasia with rTMS (n = 13) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with sham (n = 11) T2 vs T1)
UNR UNR ROI
LI
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: language network LI; actual LIs are not reported, only change in LI ↑ LI (language network)
notes: T1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group
Thiel et al. (2013):
ROI 2
Verb generation vs rest LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ AAT total score
UNR UNR ROI
LI
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: language network LI; model did not include treatment group (rTMS vs sham) ↑ LI (language network)
notes: patients who improved more showed a greater leftward shift of activation; T1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group
Abel et al. (2014):
Vox 1
Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) picture naming
Somewhat valid (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
C UNR Vox
CCTB
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 11 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ R basal ganglia
Abel et al. (2014):
Vox 2
Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ picture naming accuracy
C UNR Vox
CCTB
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 11 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L somato-motor
↑ L inferior parietal lobule
↑ L supramarginal gyrus
↑ L posterior STS
↑ L posterior MTG
↑ L occipital
Abel et al. (2014):
Vox 3
Picture naming (trained items) vs picture naming (untrained items) LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
N UNR Vox
CCTB
Behavioral data notes: trained items improved more than untrained items; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 11 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L precuneus
↑ L posterior STG
↑ L Heschl's gyrus
↑ L mid temporal
↑ L posterior cingulate
↑ L thalamus
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↑ R posterior cingulate
↑ R thalamus
↑ R basal ganglia
Abel et al. (2014):
Vox 4
Picture naming (semantic trained items) vs picture naming (phonological trained items) LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Y UNR Vox
CCTB
Behavioral data notes: no differential effects for semantic vs phonological trained items; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 11 voxels (size not stated) ↑ R superior parietal
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ L somato-motor
↓ L occipital
↓ L anterior cingulate
↓ L posterior cingulate
↓ R precuneus
↓ R occipital
↓ R anterior cingulate
↓ R posterior cingulate
↓ R hippocampus/MTL
Abel et al. (2014):
Vox 5
Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest CAA
Aphasia with semantic impairment T1 (n = 8) vs with phonological impairment T1 (n = 6)
UNR UNR Vox
CCTB
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 11 voxels (size not stated) ↑ R IFG pars triangularis
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Abel et al. (2014):
Vox 6
Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest LAA
(Aphasia with semantic impairment (n = 8) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with phonological impairment (n = 6) T2 vs T1)
N UNR Vox
CCTB
Behavioral data notes: phonological patients showed more improvement on trained items; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 11 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L somato-motor
↑ L Heschl's gyrus
↑ L anterior temporal
↑ L occipital
↑ L thalamus
↑ L basal ganglia
↑ R somato-motor
↓ L IFG pars opercularis
Abel et al. (2014):
Vox 7
Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest LA
Aphasia with semantic impairment (n = 8) T2 vs T1
N UNR Vox
CCTB
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 11 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L basal ganglia
Abel et al. (2014):
Vox 8
Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest LA
Aphasia with phonological impairment (n = 6) T2 vs T1
N UNR Vox
CCTB
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 11 voxels (size not stated) None
Benjamin et al. (2014):
ROI 1
Word generation vs rest LA
Aphasia with intention treatment (n = 7) T2 vs T1
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) lateral frontal LI; (2) medial frontal LI; (3) posterior perisylvian LI ↓ LI (frontal)
notes: laterality shift for lateral frontal LI, not medial frontal LI
Benjamin et al. (2014):
ROI 2
Word generation vs rest LA
Aphasia with intention treatment (n = 6) T3 vs T1
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) lateral frontal LI; (2) medial frontal LI; (3) posterior perisylvian LI ↓ LI (frontal)
notes: laterality shift for both lateral and medial frontal LIs
Benjamin et al. (2014):
ROI 3
Word generation vs rest LA
Aphasia with control treatment (n = 7) T2 vs T1
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) lateral frontal LI; (2) medial frontal LI; (3) posterior perisylvian LI None
Benjamin et al. (2014):
ROI 4
Word generation vs rest LA
Aphasia with control treatment (n = 7) T3 vs T1
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) lateral frontal LI; (2) medial frontal LI; (3) posterior perisylvian LI None
Benjamin et al. (2014):
ROI 5
Word generation vs rest LC
Aphasia with intention treatment (n = 7) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ category-member generation probe performance
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) lateral frontal LI; (2) medial frontal LI; (3) posterior perisylvian LI ↓ LI (temporal)
Benjamin et al. (2014):
ROI 6
Word generation vs rest LC
Aphasia with control treatment (n = 7) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ category-member generation probe performance
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) lateral frontal LI; (2) medial frontal LI; (3) posterior perisylvian LI None
Benjamin et al. (2014):
ROI 7
Word generation vs rest LC
Aphasia with intention treatment (n = 7) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ picture naming probe performance
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) lateral frontal LI; (2) medial frontal LI; (3) posterior perisylvian LI None
Benjamin et al. (2014):
ROI 8
Word generation vs rest LC
Aphasia with control treatment (n = 7) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ picture naming probe performance
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) lateral frontal LI; (2) medial frontal LI; (3) posterior perisylvian LI None
Brownsett et al. (2014):
Vox 1
Listening to sentences vs listening to segmented white noise CAC
Aphasia (T2 and T3) vs control (T1 and T2)
N NANT Vox
C-
Behavioral data notes: significant difference in accuracy of subsequent repetition; search volume: whole brain; software: FSL (FEAT 5.98); voxelwise p: ~.01 (z > 2.3); cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT ↑ L insula
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R insula
↑ R anterior cingulate
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L precuneus
↓ L posterior cingulate
↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R precuneus
↓ R posterior cingulate
notes: findings are approximate since description is partially in terms of networks; at the earlier time point only, patients also showed reduced activity in left ventral prefrontal cortex and right medial planum temporale
Brownsett et al. (2014):
Vox 2
Listening to sentences (patients) or listening to noise vocoded sentences (controls) vs listening to segmented white noise CAC
Aphasia (T2 and T3) vs control (T1 and T2)
Y NANT Vox
C-
Behavioral data notes: no significant difference in accuracy of subsequent repetition; search volume: whole brain; software: FSL (FEAT 5.98); voxelwise p: ~.01 (z > 2.3); cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT None
Brownsett et al. (2014):
ROI 1
Listening to sentences vs listening to segmented white noise CC
Aphasia mean of T1, T2, T3
Covariate: picture description score (CAT), mean of T1, T2, T3
UNR NANT ROI
Func
One
Behavioral data notes: referring to accuracy of subsequent repetition; correlation with picture description is not reported; number of ROIs: 1; ROI: dorsal anterior cingulate cortex/midline superior frontal gyrus; how ROI defined: contrast of listening to vocoded speech and listening to normal speech in controls; same result obtained with age and lesion volume included in the model ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R anterior cingulate
notes: increased activation of dACC/SFG was correlated with higher scores on picture description
Mattioli et al. (2014):
Vox 1
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia treated T2 (n = 6) vs untreated T2 (n = 6)
Somewhat valid (groups were different but not due to treatment)
Y UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: whole brain; software: BrainVoyager QX 1.9; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: 0.16 cc; methods report cluster extent threshold (we assume this was done), but figure caption states uncorrected ↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R supramarginal gyrus
notes: based on coordinates in Table 2
Mattioli et al. (2014):
Vox 2
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia treated T3 (n = 6) vs untreated T3 (n = 6)
Somewhat valid (groups were different but not due to treatment)
Y UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: whole brain; software: BrainVoyager QX 1.9; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: 0.16 cc; methods report cluster extent threshold (we assume this was done), but figure caption states uncorrected ↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ L insula
↑ L supramarginal gyrus
notes: based on coordinates in Table 2; also increases in R IFG and R supramarginal gyrus but only uncorrected
Mattioli et al. (2014):
Vox 3
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LAA
(Aphasia treated (n = 6) T2 vs T1) vs (untreated (n = 6) T2 vs T1)
Somewhat valid (no treatment effect)
Y UNR Vox
NDC
Search volume: whole brain; software: BrainVoyager QX 1.9; qualitative comparison on p. 548 ↑ L IFG
↑ R posterior STG
↓ L inferior parietal lobule
↓ R IFG
notes: treated patients showed increases in L IFG and R STG, while untreated patients showed increases in L IPL and R IFG
Mattioli et al. (2014):
Vox 4
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LAA
(Aphasia treated (n = 6) T3 vs T2) vs (untreated (n = 6) T3 vs T2)
Somewhat valid (no treatment effect)
Y UNR Vox
NDC
Search volume: whole brain; software: BrainVoyager QX 1.9; qualitative comparison on p. 548 None
notes: the two groups were reported to have comparable increases in L hemisphere language areas
Mattioli et al. (2014):
Vox 5
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LA
Aphasia treated (n = 6) T2 vs T1
Y UNR Vox
NC
Search volume: whole brain; software: BrainVoyager QX 1.9; voxelwise p: .005; cluster extent cutoff: none ↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ R posterior STG
Mattioli et al. (2014):
Vox 6
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LA
Aphasia untreated (n = 6) T2 vs T1
Y UNR Vox
NC
Search volume: whole brain; software: BrainVoyager QX 1.9; voxelwise p: .005; cluster extent cutoff: none ↑ L inferior parietal lobule
↑ R insula
Mattioli et al. (2014):
Vox 7
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LA
Aphasia treated (n = 6) T3 vs T2
Y UNR Vox
NC
Search volume: whole brain; software: BrainVoyager QX 1.9; voxelwise p: .005; cluster extent cutoff: none ↑ L IFG
↑ L insula
↑ L inferior parietal lobule
↑ L anterior temporal
↑ R insula
Mattioli et al. (2014):
Vox 8
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LA
Aphasia untreated (n = 6) T3 vs T2
Y UNR Vox
NC
Search volume: whole brain; software: BrainVoyager QX 1.9; voxelwise p: .005; cluster extent cutoff: none ↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L superior parietal
↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↑ R IFG pars opercularis
↑ R angular gyrus
Mattioli et al. (2014):
ROI 1
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LAA
(Aphasia treated (n = 6) T1 ≠ T2 ≠ T3) vs (untreated (n = 6) T1 ≠ T2 ≠ T3)
Somewhat valid (no treatment effect)
Y UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L IFG; (2) R IFG; (3) L STG; (4) R STG; how ROIs defined: based on functional data from patients and controls, but details not stated; a different set of ROIs are mentioned in the results so it is not really clear which set were actually used ↑ L IFG
notes: interaction of time by treatment: treated group showed greater L IFG activity at T2
Mattioli et al. (2014):
ROI 2
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia treated (n = 6) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ written language (AAT)
Y UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L IFG; (2) R IFG; (3) L STG; (4) R STG; how ROIs defined: based on functional data from patients and controls, but details not stated; a different set of ROIs are mentioned in the results so it is not really clear which set were actually used None
Mattioli et al. (2014):
ROI 3
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia treated (n = 6) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ naming (AAT)
Y UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L IFG; (2) R IFG; (3) L STG; (4) R STG; how ROIs defined: based on functional data from patients and controls, but details not stated; a different set of ROIs are mentioned in the results so it is not really clear which set were actually used ↑ L IFG
Mattioli et al. (2014):
ROI 4
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia untreated (n = 6) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ written language (AAT)
Y UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L IFG; (2) R IFG; (3) L STG; (4) R STG; how ROIs defined: based on functional data from patients and controls, but details not stated; a different set of ROIs are mentioned in the results so it is not really clear which set were actually used None
Mattioli et al. (2014):
ROI 5
Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia untreated (n = 6) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ naming (AAT)
Y UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L IFG; (2) R IFG; (3) L STG; (4) R STG; how ROIs defined: based on functional data from patients and controls, but details not stated; a different set of ROIs are mentioned in the results so it is not really clear which set were actually used ↑ R IFG
Mohr et al. (2014):
Vox 1
Listening to sentences (high and low ambiguity) vs listening to signal-correlated noise LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
NANB NANT Vox
NDC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; qualitative generalization across individuals on pp. 8-9 None
Mohr et al. (2014):
ROI 1
Listening to high ambiguity sentences vs listening to low ambiguity sentences LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
NANB NANT ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L IFG; (2) R IFG; (3) L ITG; (4) R ITG; the temporal ROIs are described as STG but they seem to be in the ITG; how ROIs defined: defined based on control data from Rodd et al. (2005) but the coordinates do not match so it is not clear exactly how they were defined; ANOVA of timepoint by hemisphere by site, with a significant interaction of timepoint by hemisphere ↑ R IFG
↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
notes: all signal changes were negative (i.e. less activation for ambiguous sentences), making interpretation challenging
Robson et al. (2014):
Vox 1
Semantic decision (written word and picture) vs visual decision and rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
N N Vox
CA
Behavioral data notes: patients also less accurate on control condition, but control condition includes rest so coded based on language condition only; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .005; cluster extent cutoff: 4 voxels (size not stated); dual baseline computation not explained ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
↑ L mid temporal
↑ L anterior temporal
↑ L cerebellum
↑ L hippocampus/MTL
↑ R mid temporal
↑ R anterior temporal
↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↑ R cerebellum
↑ R hippocampus/MTL
↓ R posterior cingulate
Robson et al. (2014):
ROI 1
Semantic decision (written word and picture) vs visual decision and rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
N N ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: patients also less accurate on control condition, but control condition includes rest so coded based on language condition only; number of ROIs: 10; ROIs: (1) L anterior fusiform gyrus; (2) L temporal pole; (3) L anterior STS; (4) L IFG; (5) L ventral occipito-temporal; (6-10) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: spheres around functional peaks from literature; dual baseline computation not explained ↑ L anterior temporal
↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Szaflarski et al. (2014):
Vox 1
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia vs control
UNR UNR Vox
NDC
Search volume: whole brain; software: CCHIPS; qualitative comparison on pp. 5-6 (page numbers refer to PMC author manuscript) ↓ L inferior parietal lobule
↓ L superior parietal
↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L occipital
↓ R occipital
Szaflarski et al. (2014):
ROI 1
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia vs control
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporal LI; (3) language network LI ↓ LI (language network)
↓ LI (frontal)
notes: temporal LI was also marginally significantly reduced (p = .08)
van Hees et al. (2014):
Vox 1
Picture naming (phonological trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) picture naming (phonological treated items)
Somewhat valid (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
YCT UNR Vox
CCS
Search volume: whole brain; software: AFNI; voxelwise p: .005; cluster extent cutoff: 0.999 cc None
van Hees et al. (2014):
Vox 2
Picture naming (semantic trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) picture naming (semantic treated items)
Somewhat valid (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
YCT UNR Vox
CCS
Search volume: whole brain; software: AFNI; voxelwise p: .005; cluster extent cutoff: 0.999 cc ↑ L basal ganglia
van Hees et al. (2014):
Vox 3
Picture naming (phonological trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images CC
Aphasia T2
Covariate: previous Δ (T2 vs T1) picture naming (phonological treated items)
Not valid (T2 activation not an appropriate measure of treatment-induced recovery because it reflects T2 performance)
YCT UNR Vox
CCS
Search volume: whole brain; software: AFNI; voxelwise p: .005; cluster extent cutoff: 0.999 cc ↑ L supramarginal gyrus
↑ R precuneus
van Hees et al. (2014):
Vox 4
Picture naming (semantic trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images CC
Aphasia T2
Covariate: previous Δ (T2 vs T1) picture naming (semantic treated items)
Not valid (T2 activation not an appropriate measure of treatment-induced recovery because it reflects T2 performance)
YCT UNR Vox
CCS
Search volume: whole brain; software: AFNI; voxelwise p: .005; cluster extent cutoff: 0.999 cc None
van Hees et al. (2014):
Vox 5
Picture naming (phonological trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: subsequent outcome (T2) picture naming
Not valid (not appropriate to correlate T1 imaging with T2 behavior without T1 behavior in model)
YCT UNR Vox
CCS
Search volume: whole brain; software: AFNI; voxelwise p: .005; cluster extent cutoff: 0.999 cc None
van Hees et al. (2014):
Vox 6
Picture naming (semantic trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: subsequent outcome (T2) picture naming
Not valid (not appropriate to correlate T1 imaging with T2 behavior without T1 behavior in model)
YCT UNR Vox
CCS
Search volume: whole brain; software: AFNI; voxelwise p: .005; cluster extent cutoff: 0.999 cc None
van Hees et al. (2014):
Vox 7
Picture naming (phonological trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images CC
Aphasia T2
Covariate: picture naming T2
YCT UNR Vox
CCS
Search volume: whole brain; software: AFNI; voxelwise p: .005; cluster extent cutoff: 0.999 cc None
van Hees et al. (2014):
Vox 8
Picture naming (semantic trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images CC
Aphasia T2
Covariate: picture naming T2
YCT UNR Vox
CCS
Search volume: whole brain; software: AFNI; voxelwise p: .005; cluster extent cutoff: 0.999 cc None
Abel et al. (2015):
Vox 1
Picture naming vs rest LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
N N Vox
CCTB
Behavioral data notes: RT shorter at T2; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 11 voxels (size not stated) ↓ L IFG pars triangularis
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L dorsal precentral
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L somato-motor
↓ L inferior parietal lobule
↓ L precuneus
↓ L posterior cingulate
↓ L cerebellum
↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R somato-motor
↓ R precuneus
↓ R posterior STS
↓ R posterior MTG
↓ R posterior cingulate
↓ R cerebellum
↓ R thalamus
↓ R hippocampus/MTL
Abel et al. (2015):
Vox 2
Picture naming vs rest CAC
Aphasia T1 vs control T1
AM N Vox
CCTB
Behavioral data notes: controls responded more quickly; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 11 voxels (size not stated) ↑ R precuneus
↓ L somato-motor
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
↓ L anterior cingulate
↓ L posterior cingulate
↓ L thalamus
↓ L basal ganglia
↓ R insula
↓ R somato-motor
↓ R mid temporal
Abel et al. (2015):
Vox 3
Picture naming vs rest LAC
(Aphasia T2 vs T1) vs (control T2 vs T1)
AM UNR Vox
CCTB
Behavioral data notes: RT not reported for controls; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 11 voxels (size not stated) ↓ L precuneus
↓ L anterior cingulate
↓ L posterior cingulate
↓ L basal ganglia
↓ R precuneus
↓ R posterior STS
↓ R posterior MTG
↓ R posterior cingulate
↓ R thalamus
↓ R hippocampus/MTL
Abel et al. (2015):
Vox 4
Picture naming vs rest CAC
Aphasia T1 vs control T1
AM UNR Vox
NDC
Behavioral data notes: RT not reported for controls; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; qualitative comparison between activation in the first 5 TRs after each stimulus on p. 1101 None
notes: the time course of response is stated to be similar in patients and controls, however the response in patients appears like it could be a couple of seconds slower
Abel et al. (2015):
Cplx 1
Picture naming vs rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
N UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: RT not reported for controls; Joint ICA was performed on structural and functional contrast images using FIT 1.2c. Three of the 7 components differed between groups in their loadings. Components were thresholded at z > 3.09, not corrected for multiple comparisons. Other:
Three structural-functional components are described in Figure 5 and Table 4. Functional activations are generally small and do not obviously relate to language processing. It is mentioned in the supplementary results that "the lesion maps may dominate estimation of the mixing parameter" (p. 10).
Kiran et al. (2015):
Vox 1
Picture naming (trained) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "skip" LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
UNR UNR Vox
NDC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; analyses were carried out in individual patients at p < .001, uncorrected; regions were considered activated when they were found in 6 or more (out of 8) patients ↑ L IFG
↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ L dorsal precentral
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L supramarginal gyrus
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L posterior MTG
↑ R IFG
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R posterior STG
↑ R posterior MTG
↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
notes: regions are approximate since only broad regions are described in Table 6
Kiran et al. (2015):
Vox 2
Semantic feature decision vs visual decision LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
UNR UNR Vox
NDC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; analyses were carried out in individual patients at p < .001, uncorrected; regions were considered activated when they were found in 6 or more (out of 8) patients ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ L dorsal precentral
↑ L posterior MTG
↑ R IFG
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R posterior STG
↑ R posterior MTG
notes: regions are approximate since only broad regions are described in Table 7
Sandberg et al. (2015):
Vox 1
Concreteness judgment (abstract words, correct trials) vs rest LA
Aphasia with response to treatment (n = 9) T2 vs T1
Y Y Vox
NC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: none; images show peaks instead of activations ↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L inferior parietal lobule
↑ L supramarginal gyrus
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L precuneus
↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↑ L posterior cingulate
↑ L basal ganglia
↑ R orbitofrontal
↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R anterior temporal
↑ R occipital
Sandberg et al. (2015):
Vox 2
Concreteness judgment (concrete words, correct trials) vs rest LA
Aphasia with generalization of treatment effects to concrete words (n = 7) T2 vs T1
Y Y Vox
NC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: none; images show peaks instead of activations ↑ L insula
↑ L inferior parietal lobule
↑ L supramarginal gyrus
↑ L precuneus
↑ L occipital
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R posterior STG
↑ R posterior cingulate
Geranmayeh et al. (2016):
ROI 1
Propositional speech production vs rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
N UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: difference in AICW/trial; number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L fronto-temporo-parietal network; (2) R fronto-temporo-parietal network; (3) cingulo-opercular network; (4) default mode network; how ROIs defined: identified using ICA in controls; circular because ROIs defined in one group ↑ L insula
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R insula
↑ R anterior cingulate
Geranmayeh et al. (2016):
ROI 2
Propositional speech production vs counting CAC
Aphasia vs control
N UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: difference in AICW/trial; number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L fronto-temporo-parietal network; (2) R fronto-temporo-parietal network; (3) cingulo-opercular network; (4) default mode network; how ROIs defined: identified using ICA in controls; circular because ROIs defined in one group ↑ L insula
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R insula
↑ R anterior cingulate
↓ L IFG
↓ L inferior parietal lobule
↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Geranmayeh et al. (2016):
ROI 3
Propositional speech production vs target decision CAC
Aphasia vs control
N UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: difference in AICW/trial; number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L fronto-temporo-parietal network; (2) R fronto-temporo-parietal network; (3) cingulo-opercular network; (4) default mode network; how ROIs defined: identified using ICA in controls; circular because ROIs defined in one group None
Geranmayeh et al. (2016):
Cplx 1
Propositional speech production vs rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
N UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: difference in AICW/trial; Activity was compared between pairs of ICA-derived networks. However, circularity was introduced because the networks were defined based on the control group. Other:
Patients showed greater differential activation than controls between (1) L fronto-temporo-parietal network and the DMN; (2) R fronto-temporo-parietal network and the DMN; (3) cingulo-opercular network and the DMN.
Geranmayeh et al. (2016):
Cplx 2
Propositional speech production vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: appropriate information-carrying words
C UNR Cplx
Multiple regression was used to determine whether differential activation between networks was predictive of the behavioral measure: appropriate information-carrying words. There is no issue of circularity with this analysis since it involved only individuals with aphasia. Other:
Differential activation between L fronto-temporo-parietal network and the DMN was positively correlated with AICW. Differential activation between R fronto-temporo-parietal network and the DMN was negatively correlated with AICW.
Geranmayeh et al. (2016):
Cplx 3
Propositional speech production vs rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
N UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: difference in AICW/trial; PPI analyses were used to investigate how the speech condition modulated functional connectivity between (1) L fronto-temporo-parietal network and the DMN; (2) R fronto-temporo-parietal network and the DMN. However, circularity was introduced because the networks were defined based on the control group. Other:
In controls, the L FTP network reduced connectivity with the DMN during speech, while the R FTP network increased connectivity with the DMN during speech. Both of these interactions were significantly decreased in patients. This was also true for contrasts 2 and 3.
Griffis et al. (2016):
Vox 1
Verb generation vs finger tapping LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Somewhat valid (patients improved only on semantic fluency)
UNR UNR Vox
NC
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: none ↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ R cerebellum
↑ R thalamus
↓ R anterior temporal
↓ R cerebellum
notes: based on description in text; it is noted that no regions survived FDR correction
Griffis et al. (2016):
ROI 1
Verb generation vs finger tapping LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Somewhat valid (patients improved only on semantic fluency)
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
FDR
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) L IFG; (2) R IFG; (3) frontal LI; how ROIs defined: first principal component of 8 mm spheres defined based on previously reported control peaks; lesion volume included in model ↑ L IFG
↓ R IFG
↑ LI (frontal)
Griffis et al. (2016):
ROI 2
Verb generation vs finger tapping LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ semantic fluency
Somewhat valid (patients improved only on semantic fluency)
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
FDR
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) L IFG; (2) R IFG; (3) frontal LI; how ROIs defined: first principal component of 8 mm spheres defined based on previously reported control peaks; lesion volume included in model ↓ R IFG
notes: decreased R IFG activation was correlated with improved semantic fluency
Griffis et al. (2016):
Cplx 1
Verb generation vs finger tapping LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Somewhat valid (patients improved only on semantic fluency)
UNR UNR Cplx
PPI analyses were used to investigate change over time in modulation by verb generation of functional connectivity between L IFG and R IFG. Other:
There was a significant decrease in modulation by verb generation of functional connectivity between L IFG and R IFG (p = 0.03). Prior to TMS, connectivity increased during verb generation compared to finger tapping, while after TMS, connectivity decreased during verb generation compared to finger tapping.
Griffis et al. (2016):
Cplx 2
Verb generation vs finger tapping LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ semantic fluency in association with modulation of interhemispheric IFG connectivity by verb generation
Somewhat valid (patients improved only on semantic fluency)
UNR UNR Cplx
PPI analyses were used to investigate whether change over time in modulation by verb generation of functional connectivity between L IFG and R IFG was associated with changes in semantic fluency scores, which are limited as a measure of language improvement. None
Griffis et al. (2016):
Cplx 3
Verb generation vs finger tapping LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Somewhat valid (patients improved only on semantic fluency)
UNR UNR Cplx
PPI analyses were used to investigate change over time in modulation by verb generation of functional connectivity between R IFG and all other brain regions. Voxelwise p < .001, not corrected for multiple comparisons. Other:
Reduced connectivity was observed in the L IFG pars opercularis, L anterior temporal lobe, L occipital lobe, L basal ganglia, R SMA and pre-SMA, R somato-motor cortex, R posterior MTG, and R cerebellum. It is noted that no regions survived FDR correction.
Sims et al. (2016):
ROI 1
Semantic feature decision (6 patients, 4 controls) or semantic relatedness decision (8 patients, 4 controls) vs visual decision or pseudoword identity decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: semantic feature decision accuracy
C UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 16; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars opercularis; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4) L SFG; (5) L MFG; (6) L MTG; (7) L AG/SMG; (8) L ACC; (9-16) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: AAL ↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ L IFG pars triangularis
Sims et al. (2016):
ROI 2
Semantic feature decision (6 patients, 4 controls) or semantic relatedness decision (8 patients, 4 controls) vs visual decision or pseudoword identity decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: WAB AQ
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 16; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars opercularis; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4) L SFG; (5) L MFG; (6) L MTG; (7) L AG/SMG; (8) L ACC; (9-16) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: AAL None
Sims et al. (2016):
ROI 3
Semantic feature decision (6 patients, 4 controls) or semantic relatedness decision (8 patients, 4 controls) vs visual decision or pseudoword identity decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: BNT
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 16; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars opercularis; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4) L SFG; (5) L MFG; (6) L MTG; (7) L AG/SMG; (8) L ACC; (9-16) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: AAL None
Sims et al. (2016):
ROI 4
Semantic feature decision (6 patients, 4 controls) or semantic relatedness decision (8 patients, 4 controls) vs visual decision or pseudoword identity decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: PPT
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 16; ROIs: (1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars opercularis; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4) L SFG; (5) L MFG; (6) L MTG; (7) L AG/SMG; (8) L ACC; (9-16) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: AAL None
Sims et al. (2016):
ROI 5
Semantic feature decision (6 patients, 4 controls) or semantic relatedness decision (8 patients, 4 controls) vs visual decision or pseudoword identity decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: lesion volume
Y UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Behavioral data notes: no correlation between lesion volume and accuracy, not clear whether control condition accuracy was also tested; number of ROIs: 8; ROIs: as above but only in the R hemisphere; how ROIs defined: AAL ↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R posterior MTG
notes: MTG included anterior too; SMG/AG was single ROI
Sims et al. (2016):
Cplx 1
Semantic feature decision (6 patients, 4 controls) or semantic relatedness decision (8 patients, 4 controls) vs visual decision or pseudoword identity decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: lesion status of 8 ROIs
UNR UNR Cplx
Multivariate mixed-effects linear regression analyses were used to identify relationships between structural damage to 8 regions, and functional activation in 16 regions. Results were corrected for multiple comparisons based on FDR. This analysis was not described in sufficient detail. Other:
Sparing of the L ACC and L SFG was associated with more functional activation in many regions, however this is difficult to interpret since these regions were largely or completely spared in many patients. Damage to the L IFG pars orbitalis, L MTG and L AG/SMG was associated with activation of the L ACC, L SFG (and other regions) potentially indicative of compensatory processing.
Sims et al. (2016):
Cplx 2
Semantic feature decision (6 patients, 4 controls) or semantic relatedness decision (8 patients, 4 controls) vs visual decision or pseudoword identity decision CAC
Aphasia vs control
UNR UNR Cplx
Correlations were computed between functional activation in 16 regions, and qualitatively compared between patients and controls (p. 123). There was no correction for multiple comparisons. Other:
In controls, all regions were generally correlated with one another. This was largely true in patients too, with the exception of the R IFG pars orbitalis, which was negatively correlated with the L IFG.
Darkow et al. (2017):
Vox 1
Picture naming vs rest CAA
Aphasia after tDCS (n = 16) vs aphasia after sham stimulation (n = 16); same patients, order counterbalanced, repeated measures
Somewhat valid (no behavioral difference)
Y Y Vox
C+
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT; repeated measures ↓ L insula
↓ L anterior cingulate
↓ R occipital
↓ R anterior cingulate
Darkow et al. (2017):
ROI 1
Picture naming vs rest CAC
Aphasia after sham stimulation (n = 16) vs control
AS UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: patients named > 90% correctly in all sessions; control RT not reported; number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) bilateral anterior cingulate; (2) L insula; (3) R lingual gyrus; how ROIs defined: regions that were less active in patients with tDCS vs sham; circular because ROIs defined in one group ↑ L insula
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R anterior cingulate
Darkow et al. (2017):
ROI 2
Picture naming vs rest CAC
Aphasia after tDCS (n = 16) vs control
AS UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: patients named > 90% correctly in all sessions; control RT not reported; number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) bilateral anterior cingulate; (2) L insula; (3) R lingual gyrus; how ROIs defined: regions that were less active in patients with tDCS vs sham; circular because ROIs defined in one group None
Darkow et al. (2017):
Cplx 1
Picture naming vs rest CAA
Aphasia after tDCS (n = 16) vs aphasia after sham stimulation (n = 16); same patients, order counterbalanced, repeated measures
Somewhat valid (no behavioral difference)
Y Y Cplx
ICA was used to derive three task-relevant components: language, motor and visual. Thresholding of the functional maps is not described, but they appear to reflect coherent components of a picture naming network. These components were compared between stimulation conditions in terms of mean activity and power in three frequency bins. It should be noted that the language component is left-lateralized, unlike the model-based picture naming contrast. Other:
Activity in the language component was greater in the tDCS condition. In the frequency domain, the tDCS condition showed reduced power in the highest frequency bin, and increased power in the lowest frequency bin.
Darkow et al. (2017):
Cplx 2
Picture naming vs rest CAC
Aphasia after sham stimulation (n = 16) vs control
UNR UNR Cplx
ICA was used to derive three task-relevant components: language, motor and visual. Thresholding of the functional maps is not described, but they appear to reflect coherent components of a picture naming network. These components were compared between stimulation conditions in terms of mean activity and power in three frequency bins. It should be noted that the language component is left-lateralized, unlike the model-based picture naming contrast. Other:
Mean activity of these components did not differ between patients and controls. However, patients showed increased power in the middle frequency bin of the visual component.
Darkow et al. (2017):
Cplx 3
Picture naming vs rest CAC
Aphasia after tDCS (n = 16) vs control
UNR UNR Cplx
ICA was used to derive three task-relevant components: language, motor and visual. Thresholding of the functional maps is not described, but they appear to reflect coherent components of a picture naming network. These components were compared between stimulation conditions in terms of mean activity and power in three frequency bins. It should be noted that the language component is left-lateralized, unlike the model-based picture naming contrast. None
Geranmayeh et al. (2017):
Vox 1
Propositional speech production vs rest CC
Aphasia mean of T1, T2
Covariate: simultaneous Δ (T2 vs T1) number of appropriate information-carrying words
Somewhat valid (potentially confounded by T1 and T2 language function; language function at T1 was predictive of change in language function)
AM UNR Vox
CA
Behavioral data notes: T1 AICW correlated with change in AICW, but not stated whether T2 AICW correlated with change in AICW; search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: FSL; voxelwise p: .05; cluster extent cutoff: 1.6 cc ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R posterior STS
↑ R anterior cingulate
notes: findings based on figures and coordinates; the pre-SMA/dACC peak noted to survive FWE correction at p < .001
Geranmayeh et al. (2017):
ROI 1
Propositional speech production vs rest LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
N UNR ROI
Func
One
Behavioral data notes: number of AICW increased; number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L pre-SMA; how ROI defined: peak voxel of the contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting in people with aphasia; no main effect of session in session by language recovery ANOVA None
Geranmayeh et al. (2017):
ROI 2
Propositional speech production vs rest LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ number of appropriate information-carrying words
UNR UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L pre-SMA; how ROI defined: peak voxel of the contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting in people with aphasia; no interaction of session by language recovery in ANOVA None
Geranmayeh et al. (2017):
ROI 3
Propositional speech production vs rest CC
Aphasia mean of T1, T2
Covariate: simultaneous Δ (T2 vs T1) number of appropriate information-carrying words
Somewhat valid (potentially confounded by T1 and T2 language function; language function at T1 was predictive of change in language function)
AM UNR ROI
Func
One
Behavioral data notes: T1 AICW correlated with change in AICW, but not stated whether T2 AICW correlated with change in AICW; number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L pre-SMA; how ROI defined: peak voxel of the contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting in people with aphasia ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
notes: patients with more pre-SMA activity improved more
Geranmayeh et al. (2017):
ROI 4
Propositional speech production vs rest CC
Aphasia mean of T1, T2
Covariate: simultaneous Δ (T2 vs T1) number of appropriate information-carrying words
Somewhat valid (potentially confounded by T1 and T2 language function; language function at T1 was predictive of change in language function)
AM UNR ROI
Func
One
Behavioral data notes: T1 AICW correlated with change in AICW, but not stated whether T2 AICW correlated with change in AICW; number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L pre-SMA; how ROI defined: peak voxel of the contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting in people with aphasia; lesion size covariate ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
notes: patients with more pre-SMA activity improved more
Geranmayeh et al. (2017):
ROI 5
Propositional speech production vs rest CC
Aphasia mean of T1, T2
Covariate: simultaneous Δ (T2 vs T1) number of appropriate information-carrying words
AM UNR ROI
Func
One
Behavioral data notes: T1 AICW correlated with change in AICW, but not stated whether T2 AICW correlated with change in AICW; number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L pre-SMA; how ROI defined: peak voxel of the contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting in people with aphasia; lesion size, T1 performance, and age covariates ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
notes: patients with more pre-SMA activity improved more
Geranmayeh et al. (2017):
ROI 6
Propositional speech production vs rest CC
Aphasia mean of T1, T2
Covariate: subsequent outcome (T2) number of appropriate information-carrying words
Not valid (mathematically equivalent to the previous analysis, because of the inclusion of T1 performance as a covariate)
AM UNR ROI
Func
One
Behavioral data notes: T1 AICW correlated with change in AICW, but not stated whether T2 AICW correlated with change in AICW; number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L pre-SMA; how ROI defined: peak voxel of the contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting in people with aphasia; lesion size, T1 performance, and age covariates ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
Geranmayeh et al. (2017):
ROI 7
Propositional speech production vs rest CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) number of appropriate information-carrying words
Somewhat valid (potentially confounded by T1 language function; language function at T1 was predictive of change in language function)
N UNR ROI
Func
One
Behavioral data notes: T1 AICW correlated with change in AICW; number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L pre-SMA; how ROI defined: peak voxel of the contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting in people with aphasia ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
Geranmayeh et al. (2017):
ROI 8
Propositional speech production vs rest CC
Aphasia T2
Covariate: previous Δ (T2 vs T1) number of appropriate information-carrying words
Not valid (the logic behind correlating activation changes and language outcome is unclear)
AM UNR ROI
Func
One
Behavioral data notes: T1 AICW correlated with change in AICW, but not stated whether T2 AICW correlated with change in AICW; number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L pre-SMA; how ROI defined: peak voxel of the contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting in people with aphasia ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
Griffis et al. (2017a):
ROI 1
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: semantic decision accuracy
C UNR ROI
Oth
FWE
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) L AG and bilateral midline components of the canonical semantic network, along with reduced activity in R frontal, temporal and parietal regions; (2) bilateral IFG pars orbitalis; (3) L IFG and DLPFC along with bilateral midline regions; how ROIs defined: ROIs are mixing coefficients of functional networks arising from mCCA + jICA that were differently represented in the patient and control groups ↑ L IFG
↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L precuneus
↑ L posterior cingulate
↑ R IFG pars orbitalis
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R precuneus
↑ R posterior cingulate
↓ L insula
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
↓ R IFG pars triangularis
↓ R insula
↓ R dorsal precentral
↓ R supramarginal gyrus
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R mid temporal
notes: all 3 networks were significantly correlated; analysis of networks so involvement of each individual region cannot be assured
Griffis et al. (2017a):
ROI 2
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: average of semantic and phonemic fluency
UNR UNR ROI
Oth
FWE
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) L AG and bilateral midline components of the canonical semantic network, along with reduced activity in R frontal, temporal and parietal regions; (2) bilateral IFG pars orbitalis; (3) L IFG and DLPFC along with bilateral midline regions; how ROIs defined: ROIs are mixing coefficients of functional networks arising from mCCA + jICA that were differently represented in the patient and control groups ↑ L IFG
↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L precuneus
↑ L posterior cingulate
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R precuneus
↑ R posterior cingulate
↓ L insula
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
↓ R IFG pars triangularis
↓ R insula
↓ R dorsal precentral
↓ R supramarginal gyrus
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R mid temporal
notes: networks 1 and 3 were significantly correlated; analysis of networks so involvement of each individual region cannot be assured
Griffis et al. (2017a):
ROI 3
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: BNT
UNR UNR ROI
Oth
FWE
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) L AG and bilateral midline components of the canonical semantic network, along with reduced activity in R frontal, temporal and parietal regions; (2) bilateral IFG pars orbitalis; (3) L IFG and DLPFC along with bilateral midline regions; how ROIs defined: ROIs are mixing coefficients of functional networks arising from mCCA + jICA that were differently represented in the patient and control groups ↑ L IFG
↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L precuneus
↑ L posterior cingulate
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R precuneus
↑ R posterior cingulate
↓ L insula
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
↓ R IFG pars triangularis
↓ R insula
↓ R dorsal precentral
↓ R supramarginal gyrus
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R mid temporal
notes: networks 1 and 3 were significantly correlated; analysis of networks so involvement of each individual region cannot be assured
Griffis et al. (2017a):
Cplx 1
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia vs control
N UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: semantic decision accuracy not matched, but tone decision accuracy not reported; Multimodal canonical correlation analysis (mCCA) and joint ICA were used to identify 3 joint ICs (structural/functional) that were differently represented in the patient and control groups. Although there was no correction for multiple comparisons when the functional maps were thresholded, the maps for the three networks each appeared to relate to coherent parts of the semantic network. Other:
The first joint IC comprised preservation of tissue in L posterior temporo-parietal region, activity in the L AG and bilateral midline components of the canonical semantic network, and reduced activity in R frontal, temporal and parietal regions. The second joint IC comprised preservation of tissue in the the L basal ganglia/insula region, and activity predominantly in the IFG pars orbitalis bilaterally. The third joint IC comprised preservation of the L IFG and activity in the L IFG and DLPFC along with bilateral midline regions. The first joint IC was considered to provide more robust evidence for structure-function relationships than the other two, because it was the only one where individual structural and functional mixing coefficients remained correlated even when lesion volume was included as a covariate.
Griffis et al. (2017b):
Vox 1
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: semantic decision accuracy
C UNR Vox
CCTB
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/in-house; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 126 voxels (size not stated); lesion volume covariate ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L precuneus
↑ L mid temporal
↑ L anterior temporal
↑ L posterior cingulate
↑ L cerebellum
↑ L brainstem
↑ L hippocampus/MTL
↑ R IFG pars orbitalis
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R precuneus
↑ R anterior temporal
↑ R occipital
↑ R brainstem
↑ R hippocampus/MTL
↓ L somato-motor
notes: based on figure and table; larger activations are compelling; smaller activations are not due to lenient correction approach
Griffis et al. (2017b):
Vox 2
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: average of semantic and phonemic fluency
UNR UNR Vox
CCTB
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/in-house; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 126 voxels (size not stated); lesion volume covariate ↑ L IFG
↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L precuneus
↑ L posterior STS
↑ L mid temporal
↑ L anterior temporal
↑ L posterior cingulate
↑ L brainstem
↑ L hippocampus/MTL
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R precuneus
↑ R anterior temporal
↑ R occipital
↑ R posterior cingulate
↑ R hippocampus/MTL
↓ R posterior STS
notes: based on figure and table; larger activations are compelling; smaller activations are not due to lenient correction approach
Griffis et al. (2017b):
Vox 3
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: BNT
UNR UNR Vox
CCTB
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/in-house; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 126 voxels (size not stated); lesion volume covariate ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L precuneus
↑ L posterior cingulate
↑ L hippocampus/MTL
↑ R IFG pars orbitalis
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R precuneus
↑ R anterior temporal
↑ R posterior cingulate
↑ R cerebellum
notes: based on figure and table; larger activations are compelling; smaller activations are not due to lenient correction approach
Griffis et al. (2017b):
Vox 4
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: lesion volume
UNR UNR Vox
CCTB
Search volume: R hemisphere; software: SPM12/in-house; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 126 voxels (size not stated) ↑ R IFG pars opercularis
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R dorsal precentral
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R orbitofrontal
↓ R anterior temporal
↓ R cerebellum
↓ R thalamus
notes: based on figure and table; larger activations are compelling; smaller activations are not due to lenient correction approach
Griffis et al. (2017b):
ROI 1
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia vs control
N UNR ROI
Func
FWE
Behavioral data notes: semantic decision accuracy not matched, but tone decision accuracy not reported; number of ROIs: 5; ROIs: (1) overall canonical semantic network (CSN); (2) L CSN; (3) R CSN; (4) mirror L CSN in R; (5) out-of-network CSN in R; how ROIs defined: control data; circular because ROI defined in one group ↓ L IFG
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L angular gyrus
↓ L precuneus
↓ L mid temporal
↓ L anterior temporal
↓ L occipital
↓ L posterior cingulate
↓ L cerebellum
↓ R IFG
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R angular gyrus
↓ R precuneus
↓ R anterior temporal
↓ R occipital
↓ R posterior cingulate
↓ R cerebellum
notes: results are for whole networks of regions, so individual regions cannot be assured; out-of-network R regions not listed since they were not significant in ROI 5 (only in ROI 4)
Griffis et al. (2017b):
ROI 2
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: lesion volume
UNR UNR ROI
Func
FWE
Number of ROIs: 5; ROIs: (1) overall canonical semantic network (CSN); (2) L CSN; (3) R CSN; (4) mirror L CSN in R; (5) out-of-network CSN in R; how ROIs defined: control data None
Griffis et al. (2017b):
ROI 3
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: semantic decision accuracy
C UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: CSN; how ROI defined: control data; lesion volume covariate ↑ L IFG
↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L precuneus
↑ L mid temporal
↑ L anterior temporal
↑ L posterior cingulate
↑ L cerebellum
↑ R IFG
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R precuneus
↑ R anterior temporal
↑ R posterior cingulate
↑ R cerebellum
notes: correlation calculated for the whole network of regions, so correlation of individual regions cannot be assured
Griffis et al. (2017b):
ROI 4
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: average of semantic and phonemic fluency
UNR UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: CSN; how ROI defined: control data; lesion volume covariate ↑ L IFG
↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L precuneus
↑ L mid temporal
↑ L anterior temporal
↑ L posterior cingulate
↑ L cerebellum
↑ R IFG
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R precuneus
↑ R anterior temporal
↑ R posterior cingulate
↑ R cerebellum
notes: correlation calculated for the whole network of regions, so correlation of individual regions cannot be assured
Griffis et al. (2017b):
ROI 5
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: BNT
UNR UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: CSN; how ROI defined: control data; lesion volume covariate ↑ L IFG
↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L precuneus
↑ L mid temporal
↑ L anterior temporal
↑ L posterior cingulate
↑ L cerebellum
↑ R IFG
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R precuneus
↑ R anterior temporal
↑ R posterior cingulate
↑ R cerebellum
notes: correlation calculated for the whole network of regions, so correlation of individual regions cannot be assured
Griffis et al. (2017b):
Cplx 1
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia vs control
N UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: semantic decision accuracy not matched, but tone decision accuracy not reported; Correlations between activation magnitudes in the L and R canonical semantic network (CSN) were compared between groups. However, this analysis is circular because the CSN ROIs were defined based on controls only. None
Griffis et al. (2017b):
Cplx 2
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia vs control
N UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: semantic decision accuracy not matched, but tone decision accuracy not reported; Correlations between activation magnitudes in the L CSN and R mirrored CSN were compared between groups. However, this analysis is circular because the CSN ROIs were defined based on controls only. Other:
Correlations between activations in the L CSN and the mirrored L CSN in the R hemisphere were stronger in patients than controls.
Griffis et al. (2017b):
Cplx 3
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia vs control
N UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: semantic decision accuracy not matched, but tone decision accuracy not reported; Correlations between activation magnitudes in the L CSN and R out-of-network homotopic regions were compared between groups. However, this analysis is circular because the CSN ROIs were defined based on controls only. Other:
Correlations between activations in the L CSN and R out-of-network homotopic regions were stronger in patients than controls.
Griffis et al. (2017b):
Cplx 4
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia vs control
N UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: semantic decision accuracy not matched, but tone decision accuracy not reported; The difference in activation between the L CSN and R CSN was compared between patients and controls. However, this analysis is circular because the CSN ROIs were defined based on controls only. None
Griffis et al. (2017b):
Cplx 5
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia vs control
N UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: semantic decision accuracy not matched, but tone decision accuracy not reported; The difference in activation between the L CSN and mirror L CSN in the R was compared between patients and controls. However, this analysis is circular because the CSN ROIs were defined based on controls only. Other:
The difference was smaller in patients.
Griffis et al. (2017b):
Cplx 6
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia vs control
N UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: semantic decision accuracy not matched, but tone decision accuracy not reported; The difference in activation between the R CSN and out-of-network homotopic regions in the R was compared between patients and controls. However, this analysis is circular because the CSN ROIs were defined based on controls only. Other:
The difference was smaller in patients.
Griffis et al. (2017b):
Cplx 7
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia
Covariate: interactions of semantic fluency and naming measures by lesion size
UNR UNR Cplx
For the 4 R hemisphere regions that were more activated in patients with larger lesions (SPM analysis 4), analyses were carried out to determine whether the semantic fluency or naming measures were differentially impacted by activation depending on whether lesions were larger or smaller. Other:
For 1 of the 4 regions (R SMA), there were significant interactions such that in patients with larger lesions, more activation was associated with higher semantic fluency scores and higher BNT scores, while in patients with smaller lesions, more activation was associated with lower fluency and BNT scores. There was a similar relationship with semantic fluency in the R IFG pars opercularis but only at p(FDR) = 0.07.
Harvey et al. (2017):
Vox 1
Picture naming vs viewing patterns LA
Aphasia T3 vs T1
UNR UNR Vox
NDC
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM8; qualitative comparison on pp. 138-9 ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↑ L occipital
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R IFG pars opercularis
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ R IFG pars triangularis
↓ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↓ R occipital
↓ R hippocampus/MTL
notes: based on Figure 5 and Table 4
Nardo et al. (2017):
Vox 1
Picture naming (all conditions, correct trials) vs rest LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
YCT N Vox
VFWE
Behavioral data notes: RT faster at T2; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nardo et al. (2017):
ROI 1
Picture naming (untrained items, no cue, correct trials) vs picture naming (trained items, no cue, correct trials) CC
Aphasia T2
Covariate: "a change in un-cued naming RT" (exact measure unclear)
Somewhat valid (unclear whether behavioral measure is longitudinal)
YCT UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) R anterior insula; (2) R IFG; (3) dorsal anterior cingulate; (4) L premotor cortex; how ROIs defined: peaks (only with SVC) for the main effect of untrained (4 conditions) vs trained (4 conditions) in T2 aphasia; unclear what the behavioral measure was exactly ↑ R IFG pars opercularis
↑ R insula
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 1
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAA
Aphasia CIAT T2 (n = 11) vs untreated T2 (n = 8)
Somewhat valid (no treatment effect)
AS UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L somato-motor
↑ L superior parietal
↑ L brainstem
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R superior parietal
notes: based on coordinates in Table 4
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 2
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAA
Aphasia CIAT T3 (n = 11) vs untreated T3 (n = 8)
Somewhat valid (no treatment effect)
UNT UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L superior parietal
↑ L anterior temporal
↑ L hippocampus/MTL
↑ R orbitofrontal
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↓ R IFG pars orbitalis
↓ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ R posterior STS
notes: based on coordinates in Table 4
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 3
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAA
Aphasia CIAT T2 (n = 11) vs untreated T2 (n = 8)
Somewhat valid (no treatment effect)
UNR UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↓ L precuneus
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ R posterior STS
↓ R anterior temporal
↓ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
notes: based on coordinates in Table 4
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 4
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAA
Aphasia CIAT T3 (n = 11) vs untreated T3 (n = 8)
Somewhat valid (no treatment effect)
UNR UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R basal ganglia
↓ L anterior temporal
↓ R posterior STS
↓ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 5
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia CIAT T1 (n = 11) vs control
AM UNR Vox
CA
Behavioral data notes: patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task; search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L orbitofrontal
↑ L hippocampus/MTL
↑ R IFG pars opercularis
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
↑ R anterior temporal
↑ R anterior cingulate
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 6
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia CIAT T2 (n = 11) vs control
AM UNR Vox
CA
Behavioral data notes: patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task; search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R IFG pars opercularis
↑ R insula
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L cerebellum
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 7
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia CIAT T3 (n = 11) vs control
AM UNR Vox
CA
Behavioral data notes: patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task; search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L orbitofrontal
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ L hippocampus/MTL
↑ R superior parietal
↓ L cerebellum
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ R anterior temporal
↓ R cerebellum
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 8
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia untreated T1 (n = 8) vs control
AM UNR Vox
CA
Behavioral data notes: patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task; search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R somato-motor
↓ L IFG pars orbitalis
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L angular gyrus
↓ L mid temporal
↓ L anterior temporal
↓ R IFG pars orbitalis
↓ R angular gyrus
↓ R anterior temporal
↓ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 9
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia untreated T2 (n = 8) vs control
AM UNR Vox
CA
Behavioral data notes: patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task; search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R orbitofrontal
↑ R mid temporal
↓ L IFG pars orbitalis
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L orbitofrontal
↓ L intraparietal sulcus
↓ L superior parietal
↓ L anterior cingulate
↓ L brainstem
↓ R IFG pars orbitalis
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ R inferior parietal lobule
↓ R supramarginal gyrus
↓ R anterior temporal
↓ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↓ R hippocampus/MTL
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 10
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia untreated T3 (n = 8) vs control
AM UNR Vox
CA
Behavioral data notes: patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but not significantly for the semantic decision task, and more so on the tone decision task; search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R orbitofrontal
↑ R superior parietal
↑ R cerebellum
↓ L orbitofrontal
↓ L mid temporal
↓ L anterior temporal
↓ L posterior cingulate
↓ L cerebellum
↓ L hippocampus/MTL
↓ R angular gyrus
↓ R anterior temporal
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 11
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia CIAT T1 (n = 11) vs control
UNR UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L dorsal precentral
↑ L superior parietal
↑ R cerebellum
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 12
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia CIAT T2 (n = 11) vs control
UNR UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L dorsal precentral
↑ L anterior cingulate
↓ L IFG pars orbitalis
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L superior parietal
↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↓ L occipital
↓ R IFG pars orbitalis
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 13
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia CIAT T3 (n = 11) vs control
UNR UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L somato-motor
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ L posterior cingulate
↓ L IFG pars orbitalis
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ L superior parietal
↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ R mid temporal
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 14
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia untreated T1 (n = 8) vs control
UNR UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L superior parietal
↑ L occipital
↑ L cerebellum
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R cerebellum
↓ L IFG pars orbitalis
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↓ L cerebellum
↓ R superior parietal
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 15
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia untreated T2 (n = 8) vs control
UNR UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R posterior STG
↑ R posterior cingulate
↑ R cerebellum
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L superior parietal
↓ L anterior temporal
↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↓ L occipital
↓ R superior parietal
↓ R occipital
↓ R cerebellum
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 16
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia untreated T3 (n = 8) vs control
UNR UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L superior parietal
↑ L anterior temporal
↑ L occipital
↑ R insula
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R orbitofrontal
↑ R occipital
↑ R cerebellum
↓ L IFG pars orbitalis
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L superior parietal
↓ L occipital
↓ R insula
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ R cerebellum
↓ R basal ganglia
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 17
Semantic decision vs tone decision LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ BNT
UNR UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ R insula
↑ R anterior cingulate
↑ R cerebellum
↑ R brainstem
↑ R basal ganglia
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 18
Semantic decision vs tone decision LC
Aphasia T3 vs T2
Covariate: Δ BNT
Somewhat valid (no treatment effect)
UNR UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ R somato-motor
↑ R posterior MTG
↑ R thalamus
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 19
Verb generation vs finger tapping LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ BNT
UNR UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ R orbitofrontal
↑ R mid temporal
Nenert et al. (2017):
Vox 20
Verb generation vs finger tapping LC
Aphasia T3 vs T2
Covariate: Δ BNT
Somewhat valid (no treatment effect)
UNR UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 50 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R orbitofrontal
Nenert et al. (2017):
ROI 1
Semantic decision vs tone decision LA
Aphasia ANOVA including T1, T2, T3
AS UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 5; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) cerebellar LI; (4) fronto-parietal LI; (5) Broca's LI None
Nenert et al. (2017):
ROI 2
Semantic decision vs tone decision LAA
(Aphasia CIAT (n = 11) T1 ≠ T2 ≠ T3) vs (untreated (n = 8) T1 ≠ T2 ≠ T3)
Somewhat valid (no treatment effect)
AS UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 5; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) cerebellar LI; (4) fronto-parietal LI; (5) Broca's LI None
Nenert et al. (2017):
ROI 3
Verb generation vs finger tapping LA
Aphasia ANOVA including T1, T2, T3
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 5; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) cerebellar LI; (4) fronto-parietal LI; (5) Broca's LI None
Nenert et al. (2017):
ROI 4
Verb generation vs finger tapping LAA
(Aphasia CIAT (n = 11) T1 ≠ T2 ≠ T3) vs (untreated (n = 8) T1 ≠ T2 ≠ T3)
Somewhat valid (no treatment effect)
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 5; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) cerebellar LI; (4) fronto-parietal LI; (5) Broca's LI None
Qiu et al. (2017):
Vox 1
Picture naming vs rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
UNR UNR Vox
CA
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .05; cluster extent cutoff: 10 voxels (size not stated); in the footnote to Table 2, there is a reference to FWE correction with Monte Carlo simulation, but this is not described in the text, and the values in the table appear to be inconsistent with that ↑ L intraparietal sulcus
↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↑ L occipital
↑ L thalamus
↑ R inferior parietal lobule
↑ R intraparietal sulcus
↑ R precuneus
↑ R anterior temporal
↓ L IFG
↓ L orbitofrontal
↓ L somato-motor
↓ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
notes: findings are based on coordinates, which in many cases do not match the labels assigned in the paper
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
Vox 1
Picture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
YCT UNR Vox
C-
Behavioral data notes: covert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase; search volume: whole brain; software: FSL 5.0.6; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT ↑ L cerebellum
↑ L thalamus
↑ L basal ganglia
↑ R IFG pars opercularis
↑ R insula
↑ R cerebellum
↑ R basal ganglia
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ L orbitofrontal
↓ L intraparietal sulcus
↓ L anterior cingulate
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
notes: based on Table 2
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
Vox 2
Picture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
YCT UNR Vox
C-
Search volume: whole brain; software: FSL 5.0.6; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT ↑ L somato-motor
↑ L intraparietal sulcus
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R insula
↑ R dorsal precentral
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R posterior MTG
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L somato-motor
↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L mid temporal
↓ L anterior temporal
↓ L cerebellum
↓ L thalamus
↓ L hippocampus/MTL
notes: based on Table 3
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
Vox 3
Picture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: lesion volume
YCT UNR Vox
C-
Behavioral data notes: covert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase; search volume: whole brain; software: FSL 5.0.6; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ L intraparietal sulcus
↑ L superior parietal
↑ L occipital
↑ L basal ganglia
↑ R IFG
↑ R insula
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R intraparietal sulcus
↑ R occipital
↑ R cerebellum
↑ R brainstem
↑ R basal ganglia
notes: based on Table 4, except for R frontal activations which are missing from the table, and were added based on the figure
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
Vox 4
Picture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: lesion volume
YCT UNR Vox
C-
Search volume: whole brain; software: FSL 5.0.6; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT ↑ L somato-motor
↑ L precuneus
↑ L occipital
↑ L cerebellum
↑ R IFG pars triangularis
↑ R insula
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
↑ R mid temporal
↑ R occipital
↑ R cerebellum
↑ R basal ganglia
↑ R hippocampus/MTL
notes: based on Table 4, except for bilateral occipital activations which are missing from the table, and were added based on the figure
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
Vox 5
Picture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest CAA
Aphasia with IPS damage (n not stated) vs without IPS damage (n not stated)
YCT UNR Vox
C-
Behavioral data notes: covert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase; search volume: whole brain; software: FSL 5.0.6; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT; lesion volume covariate None
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
Vox 6
Picture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest CAA
Aphasia with insula damage (n = 18) vs without insula damage (n = 21)
YCT UNR Vox
C-
Behavioral data notes: covert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase; search volume: whole brain; software: FSL 5.0.6; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT; lesion volume covariate ↓ R IFG pars triangularis
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
Vox 7
Picture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest CAA
Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 16) vs without IFG POp damage (n = 23)
YCT UNR Vox
C-
Behavioral data notes: covert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase; search volume: whole brain; software: FSL 5.0.6; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT; lesion volume covariate ↓ R IFG pars triangularis
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
Vox 8
Picture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest CAA
Aphasia with motor cortex damage (n = 24) vs without motor cortex damage (n = 15)
YCT UNR Vox
C-
Search volume: whole brain; software: FSL 5.0.6; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT; lesion volume covariate None
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
Vox 9
Picture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest CAA
Aphasia with STS damage (n not stated) vs without STS damage (n not stated)
YCT UNR Vox
C-
Search volume: whole brain; software: FSL 5.0.6; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT; lesion volume covariate None
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
ROI 1
Picture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest CC
Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 16)
Covariate: PNT
YCT UNR ROI
Func
One
Behavioral data notes: covert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase; number of ROIs: 1; ROI: R DLPFC; how ROI defined: peak location for decreased activation for patients with left insula and left POp lesions compared to patients without said damage; lesion volume covariate None
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
ROI 2
Picture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest CC
Aphasia without IFG POp damage (n = 23)
Covariate: PNT
YCT UNR ROI
Func
One
Behavioral data notes: covert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase; number of ROIs: 1; ROI: R DLPFC; how ROI defined: peak location for decreased activation for patients with left insula and left POp lesions compared to patients without said damage; lesion volume covariate None
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
ROI 3
Picture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest CC
Aphasia with insula damage (n = 18)
Covariate: PNT
YCT UNR ROI
Func
One
Behavioral data notes: covert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase; number of ROIs: 1; ROI: R DLPFC; how ROI defined: peak location for decreased activation for patients with left insula and left POp lesions compared to patients without said damage; lesion volume covariate None
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
ROI 4
Picture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest CC
Aphasia without insula damage (n = 21)
Covariate: PNT
YCT UNR ROI
Func
One
Behavioral data notes: covert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase; number of ROIs: 1; ROI: R DLPFC; how ROI defined: peak location for decreased activation for patients with left insula and left POp lesions compared to patients without said damage; lesion volume covariate None
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
ROI 5
Picture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest CAA
Aphasia with IPS damage (n not stated) vs without IPS damage (n not stated)
YCT UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: covert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase; number of ROIs: 5; ROIs: (1) L IPS; (2) L insula; (3) L IFG pars opercularis; (4) R IPS; (5) R insula; how ROIs defined: 5 mm spheres around control peaks; lesion volume covariate None
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
ROI 6
Picture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest CAA
Aphasia with insula damage (n = 18) vs without insula damage (n = 21)
YCT UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: covert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase; number of ROIs: 5; ROIs: (1) L IPS; (2) L insula; (3) L IFG pars opercularis; (4) R IPS; (5) R insula; how ROIs defined: 5 mm spheres around control peaks; lesion volume covariate None
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
ROI 7
Picture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) vs rest CAA
Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 16) vs without IFG POp damage (n = 23)
YCT UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: covert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase; number of ROIs: 5; ROIs: (1) L IPS; (2) L insula; (3) L IFG pars opercularis; (4) R IPS; (5) R insula; how ROIs defined: 5 mm spheres around control peaks; lesion volume covariate None
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
ROI 8
Picture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest CAA
Aphasia with motor cortex damage (n = 24) vs without motor cortex damage (n = 15)
YCT UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L motor; (2) L pSTS; (3) R motor; (4) R pSTS; how ROIs defined: 5 mm spheres around control peaks; lesion volume covariate ↑ R somato-motor
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
ROI 9
Picture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest CAA
Aphasia with STS damage (n not stated) vs without STS damage (n not stated)
YCT UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L motor; (2) L pSTS; (3) R motor; (4) R pSTS; how ROIs defined: 5 mm spheres around control peaks; lesion volume covariate ↓ R somato-motor
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
ROI 10
Picture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest CC
Aphasia without motor cortex damage (n = 15)
Covariate: PNT
YCT UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: R motor; how ROI defined: 5 mm sphere around control peak; lesion volume covariate None
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a):
ROI 11
Picture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest CC
Aphasia with motor cortex damage (n = 24)
Covariate: PNT
YCT UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: R motor; how ROI defined: 5 mm sphere around control peak; lesion volume covariate ↑ R somato-motor
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017b):
Vox 1
Picture naming (silently name, correct trials) vs rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
YCT UNR Vox
C-
Behavioral data notes: covert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase; search volume: whole brain gray matter; software: FSL 5.0.6; voxelwise p: ~.01 (z > 2.3); cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT; threshold of z > 3.1 mentioned in results, but presume 2.3 based on methods and figure ↑ R precuneus
↓ L occipital
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017b):
Vox 2
Picture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
YCT UNR Vox
C-
Search volume: whole brain gray matter; software: FSL 5.0.6; voxelwise p: ~.01 (z > 2.3); cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT; threshold of z > 3.1 mentioned in results, but presume 2.3 based on methods and figure ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L orbitofrontal
↑ L precuneus
↑ R insula
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R orbitofrontal
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R posterior STS
↓ L IFG
↓ L insula
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L intraparietal sulcus
↓ L anterior temporal
↓ L hippocampus/MTL
↓ R intraparietal sulcus
notes: labels based largely on text with some adjustments based on figures; overall pattern of decreased L activity and increased R activity is quite convincing
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017b):
Vox 3
Picture naming (silently name, correct trials) vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: PNT
YCT UNR Vox
C-
Behavioral data notes: covert phase but accuracy derived from overt phase; search volume: whole brain gray matter; software: FSL 5.0.6; voxelwise p: ~.01 (z > 2.3); cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT ↑ L anterior temporal
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L supramarginal gyrus
↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R somato-motor
notes: L anterior temporal correlation remained significant after accounting for lesion load and other factors
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017b):
Vox 4
Picture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: PNT
YCT UNR Vox
C-
Search volume: whole brain gray matter; software: FSL 5.0.6; voxelwise p: ~.01 (z > 2.3); cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT ↑ L posterior STG
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R posterior STS
↑ R occipital
↓ L IFG pars orbitalis
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ L angular gyrus
notes: L IFG pars orbitalis, R pSTS, and R somato-motor correlations remained remained significant after accounting for lesion load and other factors; note that the pars orbitalis region is described as frontal pole in the paper but the coordinates and image support pars orbitalis
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017b):
Vox 5
Picture naming (both phases, correct trials) vs picture naming (both phases, incorrect trials) CB
Aphasia with naming < 80% (n = 24)
NBD UNR Vox
C-
Search volume: whole brain gray matter; software: FSL 5.0.6; voxelwise p: ~.01 (z > 2.3); cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT None
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017b):
ROI 1
Picture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: PNT
YCT UNR ROI
Func
FWE
Number of ROIs: 11; ROIs: (1) right IPS; (2) left IPS; (3) left PTr; (4) left dPOp; (5) right superior motor cortex; (6) right ventral motor cortex; (7) right supramarginal sulcus; (8) left medial SMA; (9) right marginal sulcus; (10) left dorsal motor cortex; (11) right STS; how ROIs defined: regions that were activated for control > aphasia (ROIs 1-4) or aphasia > control (ROIs 5-11) ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R posterior STS
↓ L IFG pars opercularis
notes: the L IFG pars opercularis and the R posterior STS also contributed to predicting PNT scores even when lesion load on critical areas for picture naming, and several other variables, were included in multiple regression models
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017b):
ROI 2
Picture naming (silently name, correct trials) vs rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
YCT UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L anterior temporal; how ROI defined: activity for covert naming correlated with naming ability in patients, after controlling for lesion and demographic factors None
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017b):
ROI 3
Picture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest CAC
Aphasia vs control
YCT UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) L frontal pole; (2) R postcentral gyrus; (3) R STS; how ROIs defined: activity for overt naming correlated with naming ability in patients, after controlling for lesion and demographic factors ↑ R somato-motor
↑ R posterior STS
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017b):
Cplx 1
Picture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest CC
Aphasia
Covariate: lesion patterns identified with SVR-LSM
YCT UNR Cplx
SVR-LSM was used to identify regions of damage associated with activation of R pSTS ROI (defined based on SPM analysis 2). The results were thresholded at voxelwise p < .01 (CDT), cluster extent > 500 voxels. Other:
Damage to the L IFG pars opercularis was associated with more activity in the R pSTS. Damage to the L pSTS was associated with less activity in the R pSTS.
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017b):
Cplx 2
Picture naming (produce the name, correct trials) vs rest CC
Aphasia without IFG POp damage (n = 26)
Covariate: lesion patterns identified with SVR-LSM
YCT UNR Cplx
SVR-LSM was used to identify regions of damage associated with activation of L IFG pars opercularis ROI (defined based on SPM analysis 2). The results were thresholded at voxelwise p < .01 (CDT), cluster extent > 500 voxels. Other:
Damage to the L pSTG, L pSTS, and white matter underlying the L precuneus was associated with more activity in the L IFG pars opercularis. There were no regions associated with less activity.
Dietz et al. (2018):
ROI 1
Verb generation (overt) vs noun repetition CAA
Aphasia with AAC treatment (n = 6) T2 vs usual care T2 (n = 6)
Somewhat valid (marginal treatment effect)
UNR UNR ROI
LI
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: frontal LI; temporal LI calculated but not reported None
Dietz et al. (2018):
ROI 2
Verb generation (overt) vs noun repetition LC
Aphasia (both groups) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ WAB AQ
Somewhat valid (gain in AQ not tested for significance)
UNR UNR ROI
LI
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: frontal LI; temporal LI calculated but not reported ↑ LI (frontal)
Hallam et al. (2018):
ROI 1
Listening to high or low ambiguity sentences vs listening to spectrally rotated speech CAC
Aphasia vs control
NANB NANT ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) L vATL; (2) L pMTG; how ROIs defined: functional coordinates in literature; ANOVA revealed main effect of group (patient vs control), confirmed in follow-up tests for each ROI ↑ L posterior MTG
↑ L anterior temporal
Hallam et al. (2018):
ROI 2
Listening to high ambiguity sentences vs listening to low ambiguity sentences CAC
Aphasia vs control
NANB NANT ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) L vATL; (2) L pMTG; how ROIs defined: functional coordinates in literature; no interaction of group by condition None
Hallam et al. (2018):
Cplx 1
Listening to high ambiguity sentences vs listening to low ambiguity sentences CAC
Aphasia (subset with resting state data, n = 10) vs control (subset with resting state data, n = 10)
NANB NANT Cplx
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. Other:
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.
Hallam et al. (2018):
Cplx 2
Listening to high ambiguity sentences vs listening to low ambiguity sentences CAC
Aphasia (subset with resting state data, n = 10) vs control (subset with resting state data, n = 10)
NANB NANT Cplx
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. None
notes: no interaction is reported; both groups showed a correlation between L vATL activity and functional connectivity to a ventral IFG region
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 1
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia T1 vs control
AM UNR Vox
VP
Behavioral data notes: patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 ↑ L Heschl's gyrus
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 2
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia T2 vs control
AM UNR Vox
VP
Behavioral data notes: patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 3
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia T3 vs control
AM UNR Vox
VP
Behavioral data notes: patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 4
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia T4 vs control
AM UNR Vox
VP
Behavioral data notes: patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 5
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia T5 vs control
AM UNR Vox
VP
Behavioral data notes: patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task; search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 6
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia T1 vs control
UNR UNR Vox
VP
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 7
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia T2 vs control
UNR UNR Vox
VP
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 8
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia T3 vs control
UNR UNR Vox
VP
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 9
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia T4 vs control
UNR UNR Vox
VP
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 10
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia T5 vs control
UNR UNR Vox
VP
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 11
Semantic decision vs tone decision CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: semantic decision accuracy
C UNR Vox
VP
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 ↑ L anterior temporal
notes: unclear why this type of analysis was run only for semantic task, and only at T1
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 12
Semantic decision vs tone decision LC
Aphasia T4 vs aphasia T1
Covariate: Δ BNT
UNR UNR Vox
VP
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 13
Semantic decision vs tone decision LC
Aphasia T4 vs aphasia T1
Covariate: Δ semantic fluency
UNR UNR Vox
VP
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 14
Semantic decision vs tone decision LC
Aphasia T4 vs aphasia T1
Covariate: Δ PPVT
UNR UNR Vox
VP
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 15
Semantic decision vs tone decision LC
Aphasia T4 vs aphasia T1
Covariate: Δ phonemic fluency
UNR UNR Vox
VP
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 16
Semantic decision vs tone decision LC
Aphasia T4 vs aphasia T1
Covariate: Δ BDAE complex ideation subtest
UNR UNR Vox
VP
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 17
Verb generation vs finger tapping LC
Aphasia T4 vs aphasia T1
Covariate: Δ BNT
UNR UNR Vox
VP
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 18
Verb generation vs finger tapping LC
Aphasia T4 vs aphasia T1
Covariate: Δ semantic fluency
UNR UNR Vox
VP
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R anterior temporal
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 19
Verb generation vs finger tapping LC
Aphasia T4 vs aphasia T1
Covariate: Δ PPVT
UNR UNR Vox
VP
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 20
Verb generation vs finger tapping LC
Aphasia T4 vs aphasia T1
Covariate: Δ phonemic fluency
UNR UNR Vox
VP
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 ↑ L cerebellum
Nenert et al. (2018):
Vox 21
Verb generation vs finger tapping LC
Aphasia T4 vs aphasia T1
Covariate: Δ BDAE complex ideation subtest
UNR UNR Vox
VP
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12/SnPM13; voxelwise p: FWE p < .05 None
Nenert et al. (2018):
ROI 1
Semantic decision vs tone decision LA
Aphasia (comparisons between all pairs of time points)
AS UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI None
Nenert et al. (2018):
ROI 2
Verb generation vs finger tapping LA
Aphasia (comparisons between all pairs of time points)
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI None
Nenert et al. (2018):
ROI 3
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia T1 vs control
AM UNR ROI
LI
NC
Behavioral data notes: patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task; number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI None
Nenert et al. (2018):
ROI 4
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia T2 vs control
AM UNR ROI
LI
NC
Behavioral data notes: patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task; number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI None
Nenert et al. (2018):
ROI 5
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia T3 vs control
AM UNR ROI
LI
NC
Behavioral data notes: patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task; number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI None
Nenert et al. (2018):
ROI 6
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia T4 vs control
AM UNR ROI
LI
NC
Behavioral data notes: patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task; number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI None
Nenert et al. (2018):
ROI 7
Semantic decision vs tone decision CAC
Aphasia T5 vs control
AM UNR ROI
LI
NC
Behavioral data notes: patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task; number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI None
Nenert et al. (2018):
ROI 8
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia T1 vs control
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI None
Nenert et al. (2018):
ROI 9
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia T2 vs control
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI ↓ LI (language network)
↓ LI (frontal)
Nenert et al. (2018):
ROI 10
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia T3 vs control
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI ↓ LI (language network)
↓ LI (frontal)
Nenert et al. (2018):
ROI 11
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia T4 vs control
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI None
Nenert et al. (2018):
ROI 12
Verb generation vs finger tapping CAC
Aphasia T5 vs control
UNR UNR ROI
LI
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) language network LI; (4) cerebellar LI None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Cplx 1
Semantic decision vs tone decision LA
Aphasia (comparisons between all pairs of time points)
AS UNR Cplx
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. None
Nenert et al. (2018):
Cplx 2
Verb generation vs finger tapping LA
Aphasia (comparisons between all pairs of time points)
UNR UNR Cplx
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. None
Pillay et al. (2018):
Vox 1
Reading nouns aloud (correct trials) vs reading nouns aloud (incorrect trials) CB
Aphasia
NBD Y Vox
CCS
Search volume: whole brain; software: AFNI; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 1.609 cc; regarding correction for multiple comparisons, addition of monoexponential function reduces but does not eliminate inflation of p values (Cox et al., 2017) ↑ L angular gyrus
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R insula
↓ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal
notes: positive region (L AG) was part of the semantic network, while many negative regions were positively modulated by reaction time in the aphasia group
Szaflarski et al. (2018):
Vox 1
Semantic decision vs tone decision LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
UNR UNR Vox
CCTB
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .05; cluster extent cutoff: 0.928 cc ↑ L supramarginal gyrus
↑ L intraparietal sulcus
↑ L precuneus
↑ L posterior STG
↑ L Heschl's gyrus
↑ L mid temporal
↑ L anterior temporal
↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R superior parietal
↑ R precuneus
↑ R mid temporal
↑ R anterior cingulate
↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L dorsal precentral
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L somato-motor
↓ L superior parietal
↓ L occipital
Szaflarski et al. (2018):
Vox 2
Semantic decision vs tone decision LA
Aphasia T3 vs T2
UNR UNR Vox
CCTB
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .05; cluster extent cutoff: 0.928 cc ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L precuneus
↑ L posterior STS
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L anterior temporal
↓ L anterior cingulate
↓ R IFG
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R somato-motor
↓ R precuneus
↓ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ R anterior temporal
Szaflarski et al. (2018):
Vox 3
Semantic decision vs tone decision LA
Aphasia T3 vs T1
UNR UNR Vox
CCTB
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .05; cluster extent cutoff: 0.928 cc ↑ L supramarginal gyrus
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L precuneus
↑ L posterior STG
↑ L mid temporal
↑ L anterior temporal
↑ L posterior cingulate
↓ L somato-motor
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Szaflarski et al. (2018):
Vox 4
Semantic decision vs tone decision LC
Aphasia T3 vs aphasia T2
Covariate: Δ WAB AQ
UNR UNR Vox
CCTB
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .05; cluster extent cutoff: 0.928 cc; inclusive mask of voxels that differed between T2 and T3 ↓ L inferior parietal lobule
Szaflarski et al. (2018):
Vox 5
Semantic decision vs tone decision LC
Aphasia T3 vs aphasia T1
Covariate: Δ BNT
UNR UNR Vox
CCTB
Search volume: whole brain; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .05; cluster extent cutoff: 0.928 cc; inclusive mask of voxels that differed between T1 and T3 ↓ R IFG
van de Sandt-Koenderman et al. (2018):
ROI 1
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: lesion volume
NANB NANT ROI
LI
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: language network LI; how ROI defined: activations that were "not clearly related to known language areas" were excluded, but the basis for this determination is not clear None
van de Sandt-Koenderman et al. (2018):
ROI 2
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: lesion volume
NANB NANT ROI
LI
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: language network LI; how ROI defined: activations that were "not clearly related to known language areas" were excluded, but the basis for this determination is not clear None
van de Sandt-Koenderman et al. (2018):
ROI 3
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ AAT repetition score
NANB NANT ROI
LI
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: language network LI; how ROI defined: activations that were "not clearly related to known language areas" were excluded, but the basis for this determination is not clear None
van de Sandt-Koenderman et al. (2018):
ROI 4
Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ ANELT
NANB NANT ROI
LI
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: language network LI; how ROI defined: activations that were "not clearly related to known language areas" were excluded, but the basis for this determination is not clear None
van Oers et al. (2018):
ROI 1
Written word-picture matching vs visual decision CC
Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) T1 (n = 10)
Covariate: subsequent outcome (T4) overall language measure (average of AAT measures)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
FDR
Number of ROIs: 12; ROIs: (1) bilateral dorsal anterior cingulate; (2) L angular gyrus; (3) L IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (4) L thalamus; (5) L MFG; (6) L posterior ITG; (7) R angular gyrus; (8) R IFG pars triangularis; (9) R thalamus; (10) R posterior ITG; (11) R IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (12) R MFG; how ROIs defined: control activations and their homotopic counterparts in the R hemisphere; activation measured as count of voxels activated at p < 0.001, uncorrected ↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
notes: activation predicted later outcome even when initial language performance was included in the model
van Oers et al. (2018):
ROI 2
Written word-picture matching vs visual decision CC
Aphasia (all time points)
Covariate: overall language measure (average of AAT measures) all time points
UNR UNR ROI
Func
FDR
Number of ROIs: 12; ROIs: (1) bilateral dorsal anterior cingulate; (2) L angular gyrus; (3) L IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (4) L thalamus; (5) L MFG; (6) L posterior ITG; (7) R angular gyrus; (8) R IFG pars triangularis; (9) R thalamus; (10) R posterior ITG; (11) R IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (12) R MFG; how ROIs defined: control activations and their homotopic counterparts in the R hemisphere; activation measured as count of voxels activated at p < 0.001, uncorrected; mixed model; minimal detail provided ↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
van Oers et al. (2018):
ROI 3
Written word-picture matching vs visual decision CC
Aphasia (all time points)
Covariate: average of AAT comprehension score and BNT, all time points
UNR UNR ROI
Func
FDR
Number of ROIs: 12; ROIs: (1) bilateral dorsal anterior cingulate; (2) L angular gyrus; (3) L IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (4) L thalamus; (5) L MFG; (6) L posterior ITG; (7) R angular gyrus; (8) R IFG pars triangularis; (9) R thalamus; (10) R posterior ITG; (11) R IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (12) R MFG; how ROIs defined: control activations and their homotopic counterparts in the R hemisphere; activation measured as count of voxels activated at p < 0.001, uncorrected; mixed model; minimal detail provided ↓ R IFG pars opercularis
↓ R IFG pars triangularis
van Oers et al. (2018):
ROI 4
Written word-picture matching vs visual decision CC
Aphasia (all time points)
Covariate: picture-word matching accuracy, all time points
C UNR ROI
Func
FDR
Number of ROIs: 12; ROIs: (1) bilateral dorsal anterior cingulate; (2) L angular gyrus; (3) L IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (4) L thalamus; (5) L MFG; (6) L posterior ITG; (7) R angular gyrus; (8) R IFG pars triangularis; (9) R thalamus; (10) R posterior ITG; (11) R IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (12) R MFG; how ROIs defined: control activations and their homotopic counterparts in the R hemisphere; activation measured as count of voxels activated at p < 0.001, uncorrected; mixed model; minimal detail provided ↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
van Oers et al. (2018):
ROI 5
Written word-picture matching vs visual decision LA
Aphasia: linear effect of time
UNR UNR ROI
Func
FDR
Number of ROIs: 12; ROIs: (1) bilateral dorsal anterior cingulate; (2) L angular gyrus; (3) L IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (4) L thalamus; (5) L MFG; (6) L posterior ITG; (7) R angular gyrus; (8) R IFG pars triangularis; (9) R thalamus; (10) R posterior ITG; (11) R IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (12) R MFG; how ROIs defined: control activations and their homotopic counterparts in the R hemisphere; activation measured as count of voxels activated at p < 0.001, uncorrected; mixed model; minimal detail provided ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R anterior cingulate
↑ R thalamus
↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L IFG pars triangularis
notes: similar numbers of findings are reported for controls
van Oers et al. (2018):
ROI 6
Semantic decision vs visual decision CC
Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) T1 (n = 10)
Covariate: subsequent outcome (T4) overall language measure (average of AAT measures)
Somewhat valid (not appropriate to correlate T1 imaging with T4 behavior without T1 behavior in model)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
FDR
Number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L angular gyrus; (2) L IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (3) L posterior ITG; (4) R angular gyrus; (5) R IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (6) R posterior ITG; how ROIs defined: control activations and their homotopic counterparts in the R hemisphere; activation measured as count of voxels activated at p < 0.001, uncorrected None
van Oers et al. (2018):
ROI 7
Semantic decision vs visual decision CC
Aphasia (all time points)
Covariate: overall language measure (average of AAT measures) all time points
UNR UNR ROI
Func
FDR
Number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L angular gyrus; (2) L IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (3) L posterior ITG; (4) R angular gyrus; (5) R IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (6) R posterior ITG; how ROIs defined: control activations and their homotopic counterparts in the R hemisphere; activation measured as count of voxels activated at p < 0.001, uncorrected; mixed model; minimal detail provided None
van Oers et al. (2018):
ROI 8
Semantic decision vs visual decision CC
Aphasia (all time points)
Covariate: average of AAT comprehension score and BNT, all time points
UNR UNR ROI
Func
FDR
Number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L angular gyrus; (2) L IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (3) L posterior ITG; (4) R angular gyrus; (5) R IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (6) R posterior ITG; how ROIs defined: control activations and their homotopic counterparts in the R hemisphere; activation measured as count of voxels activated at p < 0.001, uncorrected; mixed model; minimal detail provided None
van Oers et al. (2018):
ROI 9
Semantic decision vs visual decision CC
Aphasia (all time points)
Covariate: semantic decision accuracy, all time points
C UNR ROI
Func
FDR
Number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L angular gyrus; (2) L IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (3) L posterior ITG; (4) R angular gyrus; (5) R IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (6) R posterior ITG; how ROIs defined: control activations and their homotopic counterparts in the R hemisphere; activation measured as count of voxels activated at p < 0.001, uncorrected; mixed model; minimal detail provided None
van Oers et al. (2018):
ROI 10
Semantic decision vs visual decision LA
Aphasia: linear effect of time
UNR UNR ROI
Func
FDR
Number of ROIs: 6; ROIs: (1) L angular gyrus; (2) L IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (3) L posterior ITG; (4) R angular gyrus; (5) R IFG pars opercularis and triangularis; (6) R posterior ITG; how ROIs defined: control activations and their homotopic counterparts in the R hemisphere; activation measured as count of voxels activated at p < 0.001, uncorrected; mixed model; minimal detail provided ↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↑ R angular gyrus
↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L IFG pars triangularis
notes: similar numbers of findings are reported for controls
Barbieri et al. (2019):
Vox 1
Auditory sentence-picture verification vs listening to reversed speech and viewing scrambled pictures LA
Aphasia treated (n = 13) T2 vs T1
UNR UNR Vox
CCS
Behavioral data notes: out-of-scanner performance on passive sentences improved; software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: 37 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L precuneus
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R intraparietal sulcus
↑ R superior parietal
↑ R precuneus
notes: based on Table 7 and Figure 8
Barbieri et al. (2019):
Vox 2
Auditory sentence-picture verification vs listening to reversed speech and viewing scrambled pictures LA
Aphasia natural history (n = 5) T2 vs T1
UNR UNR Vox
CCS
Software: SPM8; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: 37 voxels (size not stated) None
Barbieri et al. (2019):
ROI 1
Auditory sentence-picture verification vs listening to reversed speech and viewing scrambled pictures LAA
(Aphasia treated (n=13) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia natural history (n=5) T2 vs T1)
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L hemisphere sentence processing network (IFGpt, pMTG, pSTG, AG); (2) R hemisphere homotopic regions; (3) L dorsal attention network (MFG, PrCG, SPL, sLOC); (4) R dorsal attention network (same regions); how ROIs defined: sentence processing network based on Walenski et al. (2019); dorsal attention network based on Corbetta et al. (2008) and Vincent et al. (2008); ROIs were defined based on Harvard-Oxford atlas which would align imperfectly with these functional networks; dependent variable was number of active voxels (p < .001, uncorrected) divided by number of intact voxels; derivation of dependent measures from ROIs difficulty to follow, but it seems that ROIs with less than 5 voxels upregulated were excluded and deactivations were not considered, meaning that estimates of change may be biased ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ L dorsal precentral
↑ L angular gyrus
↑ L intraparietal sulcus
↑ L superior parietal
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R dorsal precentral
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R intraparietal sulcus
↑ R superior parietal
notes: bilateral dorsal attention network; findings were for networks as a whole; regions coded correspond to atlas ROIs
Barbieri et al. (2019):
ROI 2
Auditory sentence-picture verification vs listening to reversed speech and viewing scrambled pictures LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: ∆ offline comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L hemisphere sentence processing network (IFGpt, pMTG, pSTG, AG); (2) R hemisphere homotopic regions; (3) L dorsal attention network (MFG, PrCG, SPL, sLOC); (4) R dorsal attention network (same regions); how ROIs defined: sentence processing network based on Walenski et al. (2019); dorsal attention network based on Corbetta et al. (2008) and Vincent et al. (2008); ROIs were defined based on Harvard-Oxford atlas which would align imperfectly with these functional networks; dependent variable was number of active voxels (p < .001, uncorrected) divided by number of intact voxels; derivation of dependent measures from ROIs difficulty to follow, but it seems that ROIs with less than 5 voxels upregulated were excluded and deactivations were not considered, meaning that estimates of change may be biased ↑ R IFG pars triangularis
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R dorsal precentral
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R intraparietal sulcus
↑ R superior parietal
↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
notes: R homotopic sentence processing network and R dorsal attention network; findings were for networks as a whole; regions coded correspond to atlas ROIs
Barbieri et al. (2019):
ROI 3
Auditory sentence-picture verification vs listening to reversed speech and viewing scrambled pictures LC
Aphasia participants with eye tracking data (n = 16) T2 vs T1
Covariate: ∆ decrease in eye tracking online thematic prediction score
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L hemisphere sentence processing network (IFGpt, pMTG, pSTG, AG); (2) R hemisphere homotopic regions; (3) L dorsal attention network (MFG, PrCG, SPL, sLOC); (4) R dorsal attention network (same regions); how ROIs defined: sentence processing network based on Walenski et al. (2019); dorsal attention network based on Corbetta et al. (2008) and Vincent et al. (2008); ROIs were defined based on Harvard-Oxford atlas which would align imperfectly with these functional networks; dependent variable was number of active voxels (p < .001, uncorrected) divided by number of intact voxels; derivation of dependent measures from ROIs difficulty to follow, but it seems that ROIs with less than 5 voxels upregulated were excluded and deactivations were not considered, meaning that estimates of change may be biased ↑ R IFG pars triangularis
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
notes: R homotopic sentence processing network; findings were for networks as a whole; regions coded correspond to atlas ROIs
Barbieri et al. (2019):
ROI 4
Auditory sentence-picture verification vs listening to reversed speech and viewing scrambled pictures LC
Aphasia participants with eye tracking data (n = 16) T2 vs T1
Covariate: ∆ eye tracking online thematic integragration score
UNR UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L hemisphere sentence processing network (IFGpt, pMTG, pSTG, AG); (2) R hemisphere homotopic regions; (3) L dorsal attention network (MFG, PrCG, SPL, sLOC); (4) R dorsal attention network (same regions); how ROIs defined: sentence processing network based on Walenski et al. (2019); dorsal attention network based on Corbetta et al. (2008) and Vincent et al. (2008); ROIs were defined based on Harvard-Oxford atlas which would align imperfectly with these functional networks; dependent variable was number of active voxels (p < .001, uncorrected) divided by number of intact voxels; derivation of dependent measures from ROIs difficulty to follow, but it seems that ROIs with less than 5 voxels upregulated were excluded and deactivations were not considered, meaning that estimates of change may be biased ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R dorsal precentral
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R intraparietal sulcus
↑ R superior parietal
notes: R dorsal attention network; findings were for networks as a whole; regions coded correspond to atlas ROIs
Johnson et al. (2019):
ROI 1
Picture naming (trained items) vs rest CAC
Aphasia treated T1 (n = 26) vs control
N UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 16; ROIs: (1) L IFGorb; (2) L IFGtri; (3) L IFGop; (4) L MFG; (5) L PrCG; (6) L MTG; (7) L SMG; (8) L AG; (9-16) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: AAL but lesioned voxels were excluded from ROIs on an individual basis ↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ R IFG pars triangularis
↓ L angular gyrus
notes: significant interaction of ROI by group
Johnson et al. (2019):
ROI 2
Picture naming (trained items) vs rest CAC
Aphasia treated T2 (n = 26) vs control
N UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 16; ROIs: (1) L IFGorb; (2) L IFGtri; (3) L IFGop; (4) L MFG; (5) L PrCG; (6) L MTG; (7) L SMG; (8) L AG; (9-16) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: AAL but lesioned voxels were excluded from ROIs on an individual basis ↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ R IFG pars opercularis
↑ R IFG pars triangularis
notes: significant interaction of ROI by group; patients also showed more activity than controls across the average of all ROIs
Johnson et al. (2019):
ROI 3
Picture naming (trained items) vs rest LA
Aphasia untreated (n = 10) T2 vs T1
Y UNR ROI
Anat
NC
Number of ROIs: 16; ROIs: (1) L IFGorb; (2) L IFGtri; (3) L IFGop; (4) L MFG; (5) L PrCG; (6) L MTG; (7) L SMG; (8) L AG; (9-16) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: AAL but lesioned voxels were excluded from ROIs on an individual basis None
notes: no main effect of time or interaction of time by ROI
Johnson et al. (2019):
Cplx 1
Picture naming (trained items) vs rest LA
Aphasia treated (n = 26) T2 vs T1
N UNR Cplx
A linear model was constructed to examine the relationship between proportion of spared tissue in each L hemisphere ROI and changes in activation over time. The model is not described in sufficient detail. Other:
There was a significant 3-way interaction of time by ROI by spared tissue, such that in some regions (AG, MFG, IFG orb, SMG), less spared tissue was associated with greater increases in activation, while in others (PrCG, IFG op, IFG tri), less spared tissue was associated with greater decreases in activation.
Kristinsson et al. (2019):
Vox 1
Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures CAA
Aphasia with typical genotype (n = 53) vs atypical genotype (n = 34)
Y UNR Vox
VFWE
Software: SPM12 None
Purcell et al. (2019):
Vox 1
Spelling probe (training items) vs rest LA
Aphasia with both timepoints (n = 20) T2 vs T1
AM AM Vox
CCS
Behavioral data notes: see section S2, but main effects include known items also; search volume: appears to be restricted to voxels spared in all patients; software: BrainVoyager QX 2.4 or SPM12; voxelwise p: .01; cluster extent cutoff: 49 voxels (size not stated) ↑ L posterior cingulate
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R posterior cingulate
Purcell et al. (2019):
ROI 1
Spelling probe (training items) vs rest LC
Aphasia with both timepoints (n = 20) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ spelling accuracy on training items
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) R AG; (2) L PCC; (3) R PCC; how ROIs defined: regions activated in SPM analysis 1 None
Purcell et al. (2019):
ROI 2
Spelling probe (training items) vs rest LC
Aphasia with both timepoints (n = 20) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ spelling accuracy on untrained items
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 3; ROIs: (1) R AG; (2) L PCC; (3) R PCC; how ROIs defined: regions activated in SPM analysis 1 None
Purcell et al. (2019):
ROI 3
Spelling probe (training items) vs rest CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: subsequent Δ spelling accuracy on training items (T2 vs T1)
Somewhat valid (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L ventral occipitotemporal cortex; how ROI defined: the region that showed an increase in Local-Hreg from T1 to T2 None
Purcell et al. (2019):
ROI 4
Spelling probe (training items) vs rest CC
Aphasia with both timepoints T1 (n = 20)
Covariate: subsequent Δ spelling accuracy on untrained items (T2 vs T1)
Somewhat valid (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L ventral occipitotemporal cortex; how ROI defined: the region that showed an increase in Local-Hreg from T1 to T2 None
Purcell et al. (2019):
ROI 5
Spelling probe (training items) vs rest LC
Aphasia with both timepoints (n = 20) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ spelling accuracy on training items
UNR UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L ventral occipitotemporal cortex; how ROI defined: the region that showed an increase in Local-Hreg from T1 to T2 None
Purcell et al. (2019):
ROI 6
Spelling probe (training items) vs rest LC
Aphasia with both timepoints (n = 20) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ spelling accuracy on untrained items
UNR UNR ROI
Func
One
Number of ROIs: 1; ROI: L ventral occipitotemporal cortex; how ROI defined: the region that showed an increase in Local-Hreg from T1 to T2 None
Purcell et al. (2019):
Cplx 1
Spelling probe (training items) vs rest LA
Aphasia with both timepoints (n = 20) T2 vs T1
AM AM Cplx
Behavioral data notes: see section S2, where Figures S1 and S2 appear to show differences; the main effects of time were not significant for accuracy or RT, but those analyses included known items also, which had smaller effects; Local Heterogeneity Regression Analysis (Local-Hreg) was used to identify brain regions where the heterogeneity of timecourses between neighboring voxels, specifically for the trained condition, increased from T1 to T2. A voxelwise threshold of p < 0.05 was applied, followed by cluster correction based on permutation testing. The analysis appears to have been restricted to brain regions not damaged in any patients. Other:
Only in L ventral occipitotemporal cortex, there was a significant increase in Local-Hreg from T1 to T2 (p = 0.028, corrected).
Purcell et al. (2019):
Cplx 2
Spelling probe (known items) vs rest LA
Aphasia with both timepoints (n = 20) T2 vs T1
Y Y Cplx
Behavioral data notes: see section S2, main effects were not significant and effects appear smaller for known than trained; Local Heterogeneity Regression Analysis (Local-Hreg) was used to identify brain regions where the heterogeneity of timecourses between neighboring voxels, specifically for the known condition, increased from T1 to T2. A voxelwise threshold of p < 0.05 was applied, followed by cluster correction based on permutation testing. The analysis appears to have been restricted to brain regions not damaged in any patients. None
Purcell et al. (2019):
Cplx 3
Spelling probe (training items) vs rest CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: T1 spelling accuracy on training items
Somewhat valid (training items were selected for individual patients, so training item accuracy is not an appropriate measure of spelling ability)
UNR UNR Cplx
A linear mixed effects model was used to investigate the relationship between Local-Hreg at T1 in the L ventral occipitotemporal region previously identified and T1 spelling accuracy of training items. A complex model was used in which every voxel for every patient was considered an observation, with random effects of voxel and patient, but this is not described in detail. Other:
There was a significant positive relationship between T1 Local-Hreg and T1 spelling accuracy on training items.
Purcell et al. (2019):
Cplx 4
Spelling probe (training items) vs rest CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: subsequent Δ spelling accuracy on training items (T2 vs T1)
Somewhat valid (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
UNR UNR Cplx
A linear mixed effects model was used to investigate the relationship between Local-Hreg at T1 in the L ventral occipitotemporal region previously identified and subsequent improvement in spelling accuracy of training items from T1 to T2. A complex model was used in which every voxel for every patient was considered an observation, with random effects of voxel and patient, but this is not described in detail. Other:
There was a significant positive relationship between T1 Local-Hreg and subsequent improvement in spelling accuracy on training items from T1 to T2.
Purcell et al. (2019):
Cplx 5
Spelling probe (training items) vs rest CC
Aphasia with both timepoints T1 (n = 20)
Covariate: subsequent Δ spelling accuracy on untrained items (T2 vs T1)
Somewhat valid (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
UNR UNR Cplx
A linear mixed effects model was used to investigate the relationship between Local-Hreg at T1 in the L ventral occipitotemporal region previously identified and subsequent improvement in spelling accuracy of untrained items from T1 to T2. A complex model was used in which every voxel for every patient was considered an observation, with random effects of voxel and patient, but this is not described in detail. Other:
There was a significant positive relationship between T1 Local-Hreg and subsequent improvement in spelling accuracy on untrained items from T1 to T2.
Purcell et al. (2019):
Cplx 6
Spelling probe (training items) vs rest LC
Aphasia with both timepoints (n = 20) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ spelling accuracy on training items
UNR UNR Cplx
A linear mixed effects model was used to investigate the relationship between change in Local-Hreg in the L ventral occipitotemporal region previously identified and change in spelling accuracy of training items. A complex model was used in which every voxel for every patient was considered an observation, with random effects of voxel and patient, but this is not described in detail. Other:
There was a significant negative relationship between change in Local-Hreg and change in spelling accuracy on training items.
Purcell et al. (2019):
Cplx 7
Spelling probe (training items) vs rest LC
Aphasia with both timepoints (n = 20) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ spelling accuracy on untrained items
UNR UNR Cplx
A linear mixed effects model was used to investigate the relationship between change in Local-Hreg in the L ventral occipitotemporal region previously identified and change in spelling accuracy of untrained items. A complex model was used in which every voxel for every patient was considered an observation, with random effects of voxel and patient, but this is not described in detail. Other:
There was a significant negative relationship between change in Local-Hreg and change in spelling accuracy on untrained items.
Purcell et al. (2019):
Cplx 8
Spelling probe (training items) vs rest CC
Aphasia with both timepoints T2 (n = 20)
Covariate: T2 spelling accuracy on training items
UNR UNR Cplx
A linear mixed effects model was used to investigate the relationship between Local-Hreg at T2 in the L ventral occipitotemporal region previously identified and T2 spelling accuracy of training items. A complex model was used in which every voxel for every patient was considered an observation, with random effects of voxel and patient, but this is not described in detail. None
Purcell et al. (2019):
Cplx 9
Spelling probe (training items) vs rest LC
Aphasia with both timepoints (n = 20) T2 vs T1
Covariate: previous T1 Local-Hreg in L ventral occipitotemporal ROI
Not valid (the ROI was defined based on change in Local-Hreg, so spurious findings could arise in the absence of a real effect)
UNR UNR Cplx
A linear mixed effects model was used to investigate the relationship between change in Local-Hreg in the L ventral occipitotemporal region previously identified and T1 Local-Hreg. A complex model was used in which every voxel for every patient was considered an observation, with random effects of voxel and patient, but this is not described in detail. Other:
There was a significant negative relationship between change in Local-Hreg and T1 Local-Hreg.
Purcell et al. (2019):
Cplx 10
Spelling probe (training items) vs rest LC
Aphasia with both timepoints (n = 20) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ spelling accuracy on training items
UNR UNR Cplx
A linear mixed effects model was used to investigate the relationship between change in Local-Hreg in the R AG, L PCC, and R PCC and change in spelling accuracy of training items. A complex model was used in which every voxel for every patient was considered an observation, with random effects of voxel and patient, but this is not described in detail. None
Purcell et al. (2019):
Cplx 11
Spelling probe (training items) vs rest LC
Aphasia with both timepoints (n = 20) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ spelling accuracy on untrained items
UNR UNR Cplx
A linear mixed effects model was used to investigate the relationship between change in Local-Hreg in the R AG, L PCC, and R PCC and change in spelling accuracy of untrained items. A complex model was used in which every voxel for every patient was considered an observation, with random effects of voxel and patient, but this is not described in detail. None
Sreedharan et al. (2019b):
ROI 1
Neurofeedback (try to activate language areas) vs rest CAC
Aphasia mean of T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 (neurofeedback patients) or T1, T2 (no training patients) vs control mean
NANB NANT ROI
Func
NDC
Number of ROIs: 4; ROIs: (1) L Broca's area (IFG pars opercularis and triangularis); (2) L Wernicke's area (pSTG); (3-4) homotopic counterparts; how ROIs defined: individual activations within AAL ROIs on a separate word generation localizer ↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L IFG pars triangularis
↓ L posterior STG
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
↓ R IFG pars triangularis
↓ R posterior STG
Sreedharan et al. (2019b):
ROI 2
Neurofeedback (try to activate language areas) vs rest CAA
Aphasia with neurofeedback training (n = 4) mean of T4, T5, T6 vs no training (n = 4) T2
Somewhat valid (no treatment effect; second half measures rather than measures of change)
NANB NANT ROI
Func
NC
Number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L Broca's area (IFG pars opercularis and triangularis); (2) L Wernicke's area (pSTG); (3-4) homotopic counterparts; (5) L MFG; (6) L PrCG; (7) L Rolandic operculum; (8) L insula; (9) L IFG pars orbitalis; (10) L MFG orbital; (11) L SMG; (12) L MTG; (13) L PoCG; (14) L AG; (15) L HG; how ROIs defined: (1-4) individual activations within AAL ROIs on a separate word generation localizer; (5-15) AAL ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ L somato-motor
Sreedharan et al. (2019b):
Cplx 1
Neurofeedback (try to activate language areas) vs rest CAC
Aphasia mean of T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 (neurofeedback patients) or T1, T2 (no training patients) vs control mean
NANB NANT Cplx
Signal change in L IFG and L pSTG ROIs was computed, along with functional connectivity between these ROIs. Neurofeedback values were calculated based on signal change as well as correlation between the ROIs. Group differences in neurofeedback values were compared, but not quantified statistically. Other:
Patients received lower neurofeedback values than controls, due to lower signal changes and lower functional connectivity.
Hartwigsen et al. (2020):
Vox 1
Syllable count decision vs rest CAA
Aphasia after cTBS to posterior IFG vs sham; same patients, repeated measures
Y N Vox
C+
Behavioral data notes: significantly slower response times when cTBS was applied over pIFG relative to when sham cTBS was applied; search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT ↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R basal ganglia
notes: based on Figure 4A and Table 3
Hartwigsen et al. (2020):
Vox 2
Syllable count decision vs rest CAA
Aphasia after cTBS to posterior IFG vs after cTBS to anterior IFG; same patients, repeated measures
Y N Vox
C+
Behavioral data notes: significantly slower response times when cTBS was applied over pIFG relative to when cTBS was applied over aIFG; search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT ↓ L IFG pars opercularis
notes: based on Table 3
Hartwigsen et al. (2020):
Vox 3
Semantic decision vs rest CAA
Aphasia after cTBS to anterior IFG vs sham; same patients, repeated measures
Somewhat valid (no behavioral difference)
Y Y Vox
C+
Behavioral data notes: difference in reaction time did not survive correction; search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT ↓ L insula
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ R insula
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal
notes: based on Figure 4B and Table 3
Hartwigsen et al. (2020):
Vox 4
Semantic decision vs rest CAA
Aphasia after cTBS to anterior IFG vs after cTBS to posterior IFG ; same patients, repeated measures
Y N Vox
C+
Behavioral data notes: significantly slower response times when cTBS was applied over aIFG relative to when cTBS was applied over pIFG; search volume: voxels spared in all patients; software: SPM12; voxelwise p: .001; cluster extent cutoff: based on GRFT ↓ L insula
↓ R insula
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
notes: based on Table 3
Hartwigsen et al. (2020):
Cplx 1
Syllable count decision vs rest CC
Aphasia after cTBS to posterior IFG vs sham; same patients, repeated measures
Covariate: Δ RT for syllable decision (cTBS to posterior IFG timepoint vs sham timepoint)
UNR C Cplx
Whole brain correlations were computed between the difference in functional activity after cTBS to posterior IFG versus sham stimulation, and the difference in reaction times on the syllable counting task under these two conditions. The resulting SPM was thresholded at voxelwise p < .001 (CDT) followed by correction for multiple comparisons based on cluster extent and GRFT using SPM12. Other:
Upregulation of the R supramarginal gyrus after cTBS was significantly associated with slowing of RT after cTBS. This finding remained significant after including lesion volume as covariate.
Hartwigsen et al. (2020):
Cplx 2
Semantic decision vs rest CC
Aphasia after cTBS to anterior IFG vs sham; same patients, repeated measures
Covariate: Δ RT for semantic decision (cTBS to posterior IFG timepoint vs sham timepoint)
UNR C Cplx
Whole brain correlations were computed between the difference in functional activity after cTBS to anterior IFG versus sham stimulation, and the difference in reaction times on the semantic decision task under these two conditions. The resulting SPM was thresholded at voxelwise p < .001 (CDT) followed by correction for multiple comparisons based on cluster extent and GRFT using SPM12. None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 1
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 13; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; how ROIs defined: spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; post-hoc tests comparing 2 out of the 3 time points were corrected using the Bonferroni-Holm procedure, but there is no indication that that multiple comparisons across ROIs were accounted for ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
↑ L insula
↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R insula
notes: based on Figure 3; several additional regions are mentioned in text and/or Table 1
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 2
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LA
Aphasia T3 vs T1
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 13; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; how ROIs defined: spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; post-hoc tests comparing 2 out of the 3 time points were corrected using the Bonferroni-Holm procedure, but there is no indication that that multiple comparisons across ROIs were accounted for ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↑ L anterior temporal
notes: based on Figure 3; several additional regions are mentioned in text and/or Table 1
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 3
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LA
Aphasia T3 vs T2
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 13; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; how ROIs defined: spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; post-hoc tests comparing 2 out of the 3 time points were corrected using the Bonferroni-Holm procedure, but there is no indication that that multiple comparisons across ROIs were accounted for None
notes: based on Figure 3; several additional regions are mentioned in text and/or Table 1
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 4
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia frontal mean of T1, T2, T3 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal mean of T1, T2, T3 (n = 17)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 13; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; how ROIs defined: spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↑ R IFG pars orbitalis
↑ R anterior temporal
↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L IFG pars triangularis
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
notes: based on Table 1
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 5
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LAA
(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T2 vs T1) vs (temporo-parietal (n = 17) T2 vs T1)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 13; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; how ROIs defined: spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; interactions were significant in model with all 3 time points; post-hoc sub-interactions not reported but the patterns appear clear ↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L IFG pars triangularis
↓ R IFG pars triangularis
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 6
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LAA
(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T3 vs T1) vs (temporo-parietal (n = 17) T3 vs T1)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 13; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; how ROIs defined: spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; interactions were significant in model with all 3 time points; post-hoc sub-interactions not reported and patterns are not clear ↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L IFG pars triangularis
↓ R IFG pars triangularis
↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 7
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LAA
(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T3 vs T2) vs (temporo-parietal (n = 17) T3 vs T2)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 13; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; how ROIs defined: spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; post-hoc sub-interactions not reported but there do not appear to be any T2/T3 effects None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 8
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LA
Aphasia T2 vs T1
UNR UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals; how ROIs defined: (1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions; test of group by time interaction not reported Other:
there was a significant increase in activation in perilesional ROIs
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 9
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LA
Aphasia T3 vs T1
UNR UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals; how ROIs defined: (1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions; test of group by time interaction not reported Other:
there was a significant increase in activation in perilesional ROIs
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 10
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LA
Aphasia T3 vs T2
UNR UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals; how ROIs defined: (1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions; test of group by time interaction not reported None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 11
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia frontal mean of T1, T2, T3 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal mean of T1, T2, T3 (n = 17)
UNR UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals; how ROIs defined: (1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions; test of group by time interaction not reported; this comparison is somewhat questionable given the differing extent to which frontal and temporal regions are activated in controls Other:
frontal patients showed relatively greater activation in regions homotopic to their lesions
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 12
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia frontal T1 (n = 17) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 13; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; how ROIs defined: spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; circular because patients but not controls used to define ROIs ↓ L IFG pars triangularis
↓ L insula
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 13
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia temporo-parietal T1 (n = 17) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 13; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; how ROIs defined: spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; circular because patients but not controls used to define ROIs ↓ L IFG pars triangularis
↓ L insula
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ R IFG pars triangularis
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 14
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia frontal T1 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T1 (n = 17)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 13; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; how ROIs defined: spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints ↑ L anterior temporal
↑ R IFG pars triangularis
↑ R anterior temporal
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 15
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia frontal T2 (n = 17) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 13; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; how ROIs defined: spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; circular because patients but not controls used to define ROIs ↓ L IFG pars triangularis
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 16
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia temporo-parietal T2 (n = 17) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 13; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; how ROIs defined: spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; circular because patients but not controls used to define ROIs None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 17
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia frontal T2 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T2 (n = 17)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 13; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; how ROIs defined: spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints ↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L IFG pars triangularis
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 18
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia frontal T3 (n = 17) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 13; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; how ROIs defined: spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; circular because patients but not controls used to define ROIs ↓ L IFG pars triangularis
↓ L insula
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 19
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia temporo-parietal T3 (n = 17) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 13; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; how ROIs defined: spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; circular because patients but not controls used to define ROIs None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 20
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia frontal T3 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T3 (n = 17)
UNR UNR ROI
Func
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 13; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; how ROIs defined: spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints ↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L IFG pars triangularis
↓ L IFG pars orbitalis
↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 21
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia frontal T1 (n = 17) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals; how ROIs defined: (1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions Other:
frontal patients showed reduced activation in perilesional tissue
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 22
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia frontal T2 (n = 17) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals; how ROIs defined: (1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions Other:
frontal patients showed reduced activation in perilesional tissue
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 23
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia frontal T3 (n = 17) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals; how ROIs defined: (1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions Other:
frontal patients showed reduced activation in perilesional tissue
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 24
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia temporo-parietal T1 (n = 17) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals; how ROIs defined: (1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions Other:
temporal patients showed reduced activation in perilesional tissue and in regions homotopic to their lesions
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 25
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia temporo-parietal T2 (n = 17) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals; how ROIs defined: (1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 26
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAC
Aphasia temporo-parietal T3 (n = 17) vs control
UNR UNR ROI
Oth
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 2; ROIs: (1) perilesional tissue; (2) regions homotopic to lesions; each unique to individuals; how ROIs defined: (1) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (2) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 27
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions ↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
other:
L IFG pars opercularis and orbitalis did not remain significant when lesion volume was included as a covariate; there was a significant correlation between perilesional activation and LRScomp; this did not remain significant when lesion volume was included as a covariate
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 28
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia T2
Covariate: comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions ↑ L IFG pars triangularis
other:
there was a significant correlation between perilesional activation and LRScomp
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 29
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia T3
Covariate: comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions ↑ L IFG pars triangularis
notes: did not remain significant when lesion volume was included as a covariate
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 30
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions ↑ L insula
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
notes: R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex did not remain significant when lesion volume was included as a covariate
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 31
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia T3 vs T1
Covariate: Δ comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 32
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia T3 vs T2
Covariate: Δ comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 33
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia frontal T1 (n = 17)
Covariate: comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 34
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia frontal T2 (n = 17)
Covariate: comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 35
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia frontal T3 (n = 17)
Covariate: comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 36
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 37
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T3 vs T1
Covariate: Δ comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 38
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T3 vs T2
Covariate: Δ comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 39
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia temporo-parietal T1 (n = 17)
Covariate: comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions ↑ R anterior temporal
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 40
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia temporo-parietal T2 (n = 17)
Covariate: comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions ↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 41
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia temporo-parietal T3 (n = 17)
Covariate: comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 42
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia temporo-parietal (n = 17) T2 vs T1
Covariate: Δ comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions ↑ L insula
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 43
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia temporo-parietal (n = 17) T3 vs T1
Covariate: Δ comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 44
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia temporo-parietal (n = 17) T3 vs T2
Covariate: Δ comprehension composite
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 45
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: lesion volume
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions ↓ L IFG pars triangularis
notes: lesion volume negatively correlated with activation
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 46
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia T2
Covariate: lesion volume
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 47
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia T3
Covariate: lesion volume
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 48
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: lesion volume
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 49
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia T3 vs T1
Covariate: lesion volume
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
ROI 50
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia T3 vs T2
Covariate: lesion volume
UNR UNR ROI
Mix
NC
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; number of ROIs: 15; ROIs: (1) L IFG orb; (2) L IFG tri; (3) L IFG op; (4) L DLPFC; (5) L insula; (6) L ATL; (7) L PTL; (8) L SMA/dACC; (9) R L IFG orb; (10) R IFG tri; (11) R insula; (12) R DLPFC; (13) R ATL; (14) perilesional tissue; (15) regions homotopic to lesions; how ROIs defined: (1-13) spheres around peaks of whole brain analysis of all patients collapsing across groups and timepoints; (14) perilesional ROIs were voxels 3-15 mm from the lesion that were located in frontal or temporal regions activated by the language contrast in controls; (15) homotopic ROIs were flipped lesions None
Stockert et al. (2020):
Cplx 1
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia frontal T1 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T1 (n = 17)
UNR UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; Correlations between activity in 15 ROIs and LRScomp were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions, using interaction terms as well as the Fisher r-to-z transformation. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs. Other:
Correlations were higher in the temporal group in the R ATL.
Stockert et al. (2020):
Cplx 2
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia frontal T2 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T2 (n = 17)
UNR UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; Correlations between activity in 15 ROIs and LRScomp were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions, using interaction terms as well as the Fisher r-to-z transformation. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs. Other:
Correlations were higher in the temporal group in L posterior temporal cortex and L IFG op.
Stockert et al. (2020):
Cplx 3
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia frontal T3 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T3 (n = 17)
UNR UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; Correlations between activity in 15 ROIs and LRScomp were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions, using interaction terms. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs. Other:
Correlations were different between groups in the R ATL, but the correlation is not reported as significant in the temporo-parietal group alone.
Stockert et al. (2020):
Cplx 4
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LAA
(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia temporo-parietal (n = 17) T2 vs T1)
UNR UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; Correlations between changes in activity in 15 ROIs and changes in LRScomp were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions, using interaction terms as well as the Fisher r-to-z transformation. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs. Other:
In the L insula, the temporo-parietal group showed a stronger correlation than the frontal group between changes in activation and changes in LRScomp.
Stockert et al. (2020):
Cplx 5
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LAA
(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T3 vs T1) vs (temporo-parietal (n = 17) T3 vs T1)
UNR UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; Correlations between changes in activity in 15 ROIs and changes in LRScomp were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions, using interaction terms as well as the Fisher r-to-z transformation. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs. Other:
In the L insula, the temporo-parietal group showed a stronger correlation than the frontal group between changes in activation and changes in LRScomp.
Stockert et al. (2020):
Cplx 6
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LAA
(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T3 vs T2) vs (temporo-parietal (n = 17) T3 vs T2)
UNR UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; Correlations between changes in activity in 15 ROIs and changes in LRScomp were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions, using interaction terms as well as the Fisher r-to-z transformation. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs. None
Stockert et al. (2020):
Cplx 7
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia frontal T1 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T1 (n = 17)
UNR UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; Correlations between activity in 15 ROIs and lesion extent were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs. None
Stockert et al. (2020):
Cplx 8
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia frontal T2 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T2 (n = 17)
UNR UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; Correlations between activity in 15 ROIs and lesion extent were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs. None
Stockert et al. (2020):
Cplx 9
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CAA
Aphasia frontal T3 (n = 17) vs temporo-parietal T3 (n = 17)
UNR UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; Correlations between activity in 15 ROIs and lesion extent were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs. None
Stockert et al. (2020):
Cplx 10
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LAA
(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T2 vs T1) vs (temporo-parietal (n = 17) T2 vs T1)
UNR UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; Correlations between changes in activity in 15 ROIs and lesion extent were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs. None
Stockert et al. (2020):
Cplx 11
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LAA
(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T3 vs T1) vs (temporo-parietal (n = 17) T3 vs T1)
UNR UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; Correlations between changes in activity in 15 ROIs and lesion extent were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs. None
Stockert et al. (2020):
Cplx 12
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LAA
(Aphasia frontal (n = 17) T3 vs T2) vs (temporo-parietal (n = 17) T3 vs T2)
UNR UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; Correlations between changes in activity in 15 ROIs and lesion extent were compared between patients with frontal and temporal lesions. There was no correction for multiple comparisons across the 15 ROIs. None
Stockert et al. (2020):
Cplx 13
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech CC
Aphasia T1
Covariate: interaction of comprehension composite by lesion size
UNR UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; To investigate why some activation-behavior relationships did not remain significant when lesion extent was included as a covariate, models were constructed looking at the relationship between activation and behavior in patients with larger and smaller lesions. Other:
The three regions where this applied at T1, namely perilesional cortex, L IFG op, and L IFG orb, all showed positive correlations between activation and LRScomp in patients with larger lesions, but no correlations in patients with smaller lesions.
Stockert et al. (2020):
Cplx 14
Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) vs listening to reversed speech LC
Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate: interaction of Δ comprehension composite by lesion size
UNR UNR Cplx
Behavioral data notes: no differences in proportion of expected button presses by group or time, but behavioral data pooled across conditions; To investigate why some activation-behavior relationships did not remain significant when lesion extent was included as a covariate, models were constructed looking at the relationship between activation and behavior in patients with larger and smaller lesions. Other:
This applied to the R DLPFC in the T2 vs T1 analysis. This region showed a positive correlation between activation and LRScomp in patients with larger lesions, but no correlation in patients with smaller lesions.

Second level contrast = Which of the 8 relevant classes of analyses is this? Which group or groups of participants are included? If there is a covariate, what is it?; Acc = Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?; RT = Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?; Stats = Does the analysis involve voxelwise statistics, region(s) of interest (ROI), or something else (complex)? If voxelwise, how are multiple comparisons across voxels accounted for? If ROI, were the ROI(s) anatomical, functional, laterality indices, mixed, or something else? If there was more than one ROI, how were the ROIs corrected for multiple comparions?; Yellow underline = minor limitation; Orange underline = moderate limitation; Red underline = major limitation; CAC = Cross-sectional aphasia vs control; CAA = Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia; CC = Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure; CB = Cross-sectional performance-defined conditions; LA = Longitudinal change in aphasia; LAC = Longitudinal aphasia vs control; LAA = Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia; LC = Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure; Y = Yes, matched; YCT = Yes, correct trials only; NBD = No, by design; NAM = No, but attempt made; N = No, different; C = Accuracy or RT is covariate; UNT = Unknown, no test; AS = Appear similar; AM = Appear mismatched; UNR = Unknown, not reported; NANB = N/A, no behavioral measure; NANT = N/A, no timeable task; Vox = Voxelwise; VP = Voxelwise correction based on permutation testing; VFWE = Voxelwise FWE correction; C+ = Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and stringent voxelwise p; VFWC = Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction; C- = Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p; CCS = Clusterwise correction based on 3dClustSim; SVC = Small volume correction; CCTB = Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta; CA = Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent; NC = No correction; NDC = No direct comparison; M** = Mixed** (major limitation); U = Unclear or not stated; ROI = Region(s) of interest; Anat = Anatomical; Func = Functional; Oth = Other; LI = Laterality indi(ces); Mix = Mixed; FWE = Familywise error (FWE); FDR = False discovery rate (FDR); NC = No correction; One = One only; NDC = No direct comparison; Cplx = Complex.