| Analysis | First level contrast | Second level contrast | Matched for | Stats | Notes | Findings | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acc | RT | ||||||
| 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 |
| 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 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 |
| 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): 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): 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 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 |
| 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 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 |
| 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 |
| 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) |
| 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) |
| 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) |
| Griffis, Nenert, Allendorfer, & Szaflarski (2017): 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. |
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; Y = Yes, matched; YCT = Yes, correct trials only; NAM = No, but attempt made; N = No, different; UNT = Unknown, no test; AM = Appear mismatched; UNR = Unknown, not reported; NANB = N/A, no behavioral measure; NANT = N/A, no timeable task; Vox = Voxelwise; VFWE = Voxelwise FWE correction; VFWC = Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction; C- = Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p; SVC = Small volume correction; ROI = Region(s) of interest; Anat = Anatomical; Func = Functional; LI = Laterality indi(ces); Mix = Mixed; NC = No correction; One = One only; Cplx = Complex.
