Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Supplementary Table S13. Longitudinal change in aphasia: Methodologically robust analyses

AnalysisFirst level contrastSecond level contrastMatched forStatsNotesFindings
AccRT
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.