| Analysis | First level contrast | Second level contrast | Matched for | Stats | Notes | Findings | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acc | RT | ||||||
| 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 |
| 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 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 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 |
| 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): 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 |
| 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): 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. |
| 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 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 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 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 |
| 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 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 |
| 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 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 |
| 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 |
| Griffis, Nenert, Allendorfer, & Szaflarski (2017): 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, Nenert, Allendorfer, & Szaflarski (2017): 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, Nenert, Allendorfer, & Szaflarski (2017): 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, Nenert, Allendorfer, Vannest, et al. (2017): 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, Nenert, Allendorfer, Vannest, et al. (2017): 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, Nenert, Allendorfer, Vannest, et al. (2017): 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, Nenert, Allendorfer, Vannest, et al. (2017): 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, Nenert, Allendorfer, Vannest, et al. (2017): 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. |
| 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 |
| 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 |
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; CC = Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure; YCT = Yes, correct trials only; C = Accuracy or RT is covariate; 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; VFWC = Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction; C- = Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p; ROI = Region(s) of interest; Anat = Anatomical; Func = Functional; Oth = Other; Mix = Mixed; FWE = Familywise error (FWE); NC = No correction; One = One only; Cplx = Complex.
