| Analysis | First level contrast | Second level contrast | Matched for | Stats | Notes | Findings | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acc | RT | ||||||
| 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 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 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 |
| 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): 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
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; CAA = Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia; Y = Yes, matched; N = No, different; NANB = N/A, no behavioral measure; NANT = N/A, no timeable task; Vox = Voxelwise; C+ = Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and stringent voxelwise p; VFWC = Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction; SVC = Small volume correction; ROI = Region(s) of interest; Anat = Anatomical; Func = Functional; NC = No correction; One = One only; Cplx = Complex.
