| Analysis | First level contrast | Second level contrast | Matched for | Stats | Notes | Findings | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acc | RT | ||||||
| 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 |
| 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. (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 |
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; LA = Longitudinal change in aphasia; AS = Appear similar; AM = Appear mismatched; UNR = Unknown, not reported; ROI = Region(s) of interest; Func = Functional; LI = Laterality indi(ces); FWE = Familywise error (FWE); NC = No correction; Cplx = Complex.
