Language | German |
Inclusion criteria | Lesion including L pSTG; moderate-to-severe Wernicke's aphasia in the subacute period; now recovered and not aphasic per formal testing; able to perform verb generation task |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 6 |
Number of control participants | 6 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (mean 58 years, range 50-66 years; controls were younger: mean 35 years; range 27-50 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 6; females: 0) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 6; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 5-117 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | AAT |
Aphasia severity | Recovered; not aphasic per formal testing |
Aphasia type | Recovered, but all had moderate-severe Wernicke's aphasia in the subacute period |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | Posterior L MCA infarct, lesion to the L posterior STG usually extending to MTG and AG |
Participants notes | 6 patients were selected from a database of 600 carefully documented cases |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (CTI ECAT 953/15) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 6 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (axial; field of view = 5.4 cm; perisylvian only) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Verb generation |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Yes |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | L posterior temporal, IFG and ventral precentral gyrus, much smaller activations in the R hemisphere |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Pseudoword repetition |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | L posterior temporal only; similar but less extensive activation in the R hemisphere |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear mismatched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | In practice trials, patients produced 1.5 words on average per prompt, not all of which were verbs, while controls 2.3 words on average per prompt, almost all of which were verbs |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Perisylvian |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Software | SPM |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 729 (the word "significant" is used) |
Findings | ↑ R IFG ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG |
Findings notes | Based more on Figure 2 than the text |
First level contrast | Pseudoword repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear similar |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | All participants are reported to have had no difficulties in performing the repetition task |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Perisylvian |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Software | SPM |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 729 (the word "significant" is used) |
Findings | ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R IFG ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG |
Findings notes | Based more on Figure 2 than the text |
Language | French |
Inclusion criteria | MCA; persistent severe non-fluent aphasia followed by marked improvement with MIT |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 7 |
Number of control participants | 0 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 49.7 years, range 40-58 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 7; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 15-149 months; including MIT for the most recent 1-108 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
Language evaluation | BDAE |
Aphasia severity | Persistent severe non-fluent aphasia followed by marked improvement with MIT |
Aphasia type | 5 global, 2 Broca's |
First stroke only? | Not stated |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Not stated, but note that hypoperfusion greatly exceeded the infarct in all but 1 patient |
Lesion location | L MCA; 2 also had ACA |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (CEA LETI-TTV03) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 4 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (7 transaxial slices 12 mm apart) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Word repetition with MIT-like intonation |
Control condition | Word repetition |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | No, by design |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | More words were correctly repeated with MIT (16.3 ± 8) than without (12.4 ± 8; p < 0.03) |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | N/A |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | N/A |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | N/A |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Word repetition with MIT-like intonation vs word repetition |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional performance-defined conditions |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, by design |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | More words were correctly repeated with MIT (16.3 ± 8) than without (12.4 ± 8; p < 0.03) |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 18 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L Broca's area; (2) L prefrontal; (3) L sensorimotor mouth; (4) L parietal; (5) L Wernicke's area; (6) L Heschl's gyrus; (7) L anterior STG; (8) L MTG; (9) L temporal pole; (10-18) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images; activation quantified as mean rCBF, not including any intersection of the infarct with the ROI |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | Three left hemisphere ROIs were excluded (3, 6, 9) because they were completely infarcted in 4 or more patients |
Findings | ↑ L IFG ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ R posterior STG |
Findings notes | — |
Language | Japanese |
Inclusion criteria | Able to repeat single words |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 16 |
Number of control participants | 6 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 56.6 ± 11.8 years, range 38-75 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 12; females: 4) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 16; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | No* (moderate limitation) (mean 15.1 ± 16.7 months, range 1.1-50.3 months; a mix of subacute and chronic participants; 8 of each) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | WAB |
Aphasia severity | AQ mean 74.3 ± 12.2, range 53.8-92.4 |
Aphasia type | 6 anomic, 4 atypical, 4 mild Broca's, 1 mild Wernicke's, 1 transcortical sensory; alternately: 10 fluent, 6 non-fluent |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Extent and location |
Lesion extent | Mean 33.9 ± 26.3 cc, range 8.1-113.2 cc |
Lesion location | L perisylvian |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Headtome IV tomograph) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 6 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | No (91 mm field of view; coverage limitations not stated) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | No (lesion impact not addressed) |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Word repetition |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
Control activation notes | Bilateral auditory and motor activations are prominent, only slightly L-lateralized |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Some of the patients made a few errors, so as a group they may have been less accurate than controls |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Spheres around control peaks |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | The rCBF increase in R PIF was also significant at p < 0.005 for nonfluent patients with Fisher's protected least-significant difference |
Findings | ↑ R IFG ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia fluent (n = 10) vs non-fluent (n = 6) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Spheres around control peaks |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ R IFG |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Spontaneous speech (WAB) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Spheres around control peaks |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | No correction for multiple comparisons across WAB subscores |
Findings | ↑ L IFG |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Comprehension (WAB) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Spheres around control peaks |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | This non-significant finding is implied but not stated explicitly |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Repetition (WAB) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Spheres around control peaks |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | This non-significant finding is implied but not stated explicitly |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Naming (WAB) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Spheres around control peaks |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | This non-significant finding is implied but not stated explicitly |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
Language | German |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 6 |
Number of control participants | 6 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 33-66 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 4; females: 2) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 6; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (T1: ~4 weeks; T2: ~12-18 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity only |
Language evaluation | Verbal repetition, confrontation naming, oral and written comprehension, reading abilities, TT, phonemic fluency, clinical impression, family interview |
Aphasia severity | T1: TT range 37-48; T2: TT range 3-39 (1 missing) |
Aphasia type | T1: 5 global, 1 Wernicke's; T2: not stated |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Range 27.2-133.2 cc |
Lesion location | L MCA; 5 patients had superior temporal damage and 1 had subcortical damage underlying posterior superior temporal cortex |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | PET (rCMRgl) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—recovery |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: ~4 weeks; T2: ~12-18 months |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Not stated |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens ECAT EXACT HR) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 2 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | N/A—no intersubject normalization |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Word repetition |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
Control activation notes | The only control data is extent of activation and mean signal increase in L and R superior temporal cortex; both of these measures were slightly L-lateralized |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | (Aphasia with good recovery (n = 3) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with poor recovery (n = 3) T2 vs T1) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (TT not optimal measure of overall language function) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Software | not stated |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Qualitative generalization across individuals on pp. 214-6 |
Findings | ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ R posterior STG/STS/MTG |
Findings notes | The consistent aspects of the findings were that there was an emergence of L posterior temporal activation in patients with better recovery, and R posterior temporal activation in patients with worse recovery |
First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | (Aphasia with good recovery (n = 3) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with poor recovery (n = 3) T2 vs T1) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (TT not optimal measure of overall language function) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L superior temporal cortex; (2) R superior temporal cortex |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images; activation quantified in terms of extent exceeding 10% signal change, and mean % increase over the activation |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative generalization across individuals on pp. 214, 216 |
Findings | ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ L Heschl's gyrus |
Findings notes | — |
Language | German |
Inclusion criteria | MCA; able to repeat single words |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 12 |
Number of control participants | 10 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (mean 57 years, range 34-78 years; controls not matched for age) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 7; females: 5; stated to be not matched, but difference not significant) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 12; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (T1: mean 24 ± 11 days, ~3-4 weeks; T2: mean 19 ± 2 months, > 1 year) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
Language evaluation | TT |
Aphasia severity | T1: 9 severe; 2 mild; 1 not stated; TT range 3-47 errors; T2: not stated |
Aphasia type | T1: 8 global, 3 anomic, 1 Wernicke's; T2: not stated |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Extent and location |
Lesion extent | Range 2-133 cc |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | Only 7 of the 12 patients took part at T2 |
Modality | PET (rCMRgl) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—recovery |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: mean 24 ± 11 days, ~3-4 weeks; T2: mean 19 ± 2 months, > 1 year |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Not stated |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No* (moderate limitation) (activation and control images not acquired on the same day; number of acquisitions not clearly described) |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 8 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | N/A—no intersubject normalization |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Word repetition |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | No |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
Control activation notes | ROIs only; negligible evidence of lateralization |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 8 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG; (2) L STG/HG; (3) L SMA; (4) L ventral precentral; (5-8) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 219, but only the L SMA comparison is explicitly quantified |
Findings | ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L posterior STG ↓ L Heschl's gyrus |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) T1 (n = 7) |
Covariate | TT T1 |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (TT not optimal measure of overall language function) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 8 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG; (2) L STG/HG; (3) L SMA; (4) L ventral precentral; (5-8) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) T2 (n = 7) |
Covariate | TT T2 |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (TT not optimal measure of overall language function) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 8 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG; (2) L STG/HG; (3) L SMA; (4) L ventral precentral; (5-8) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R Heschl's gyrus |
Findings notes | More activation in patients with more severe aphasia per TT |
First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) (n = 7) T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | Subsequent outcome (T2) TT |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (the logic behind correlating activation changes and language outcome is unclear; TT not optimal measure of overall language function) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | L STG/HG |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L posterior STG ↑ L Heschl's gyrus |
Findings notes | Increase in activation for repetition was correlated with better aphasia outcome per TT |
First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) T2 (n = 7) |
Covariate | Previous Δ (T2 vs T1) activation in L STG/HG |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (logically problematic because patients with less severe initial aphasia would also be expected to show little L temporal increase, but would not be expected to show R temporal recruitment) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) R IFG; (2) R STG/HG; (3) R SMA; (4) R ventral precentral |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ R IFG ↓ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R Heschl's gyrus |
Findings notes | Patients with more increase in L STG/HG activation showed less activation of R hemisphere regions at T2 |
Language | US English |
Inclusion criteria | Aphasia with significant recovery over months to years (ADPASS > 70th percentile) |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 6 (plus 2 excluded: 1 unable to reliably describe performance post-scan; 1 due to head motion) |
Number of control participants | 37 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 20-56 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 1; females: 5) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 6; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 5-32 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
Language evaluation | ADP |
Aphasia severity | ADPASS percentile range 73-99 |
Aphasia type | 3 anomic, 1 conduction, 1 recovered, 1 transcortical sensory |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Extents are reported in three dimensions |
Lesion location | 4 L MCA, 2 L ICA |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Magnex Scientific 3 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | Block |
Total images acquired | 40 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (axial, perisylvian only) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | No (first level cross-correlation analysis unclear) |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | N/A—no intersubject normalization |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Picture naming |
Control condition | Viewing nonsense drawings |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | Insufficient data to assess the control activation pattern |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming vs viewing nonsense drawings |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Mixed |
How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG and MFG; (2) L pSTG, AG and SMG; (3) R IFG and MFG; (4) R pSTG, AG and SMG; (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | (1-4) individual anatomical images; activation quantified in terms of extent |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ R IFG ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R supramarginal gyrus ↑ R angular gyrus ↑ R posterior STG ↓ LI (frontal) ↓ LI (temporal) |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming vs viewing nonsense drawings |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Picture naming (outside scanner) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Mixed |
How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG and MFG; (2) L pSTG, AG and SMG; (3) R IFG and MFG; (4) R pSTG, AG and SMG; (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | (1-4) individual anatomical images; activation quantified in terms of extent |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ LI (frontal) |
Findings notes | — |
Language | German |
Inclusion criteria | AAT repetition ≥ 50 |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 23 |
Number of control participants | 11 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 56 ± 12 years, range 31-77 years; assume patient's age of 5.6 years is a typo for 56 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 15; females: 8) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 23; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (T1: ~2 weeks; T2: ~8 weeks) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
Language evaluation | AAT, phonemic fluency |
Aphasia severity | T1: subcortical: TT median 8 errors, range 0-17 errors; frontal: TT median 21 errors, range 4-40 errors; temporal: TT median 39 errors, range 1-47 errors; T2: subcortical: TT median 1 error, range 0-14 errors; frontal: TT median 8 errors, range 0-34; temporal: TT median 34 errors, range 0-44 errors |
Aphasia type | T1: 6 Wernicke's, 5 Broca's, 5 residual aphasia, 4 anomic, 2 transcortical sensory, 1 conduction; T2: not stated |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Extent and location |
Lesion extent | Range 4.3-154.3 cc (probably; units not stated) |
Lesion location | L MCA; 9 subcortical, 7 frontal, 7 temporal |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—recovery |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: ~2 weeks; T2: ~8 weeks |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Not stated |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 8 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | N/A—no intersubject normalization |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Noun repetition |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | L frontal and bilateral temporal |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Noun repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with subcortical damage (n = 9) T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 434 |
Findings | ↑ L mid temporal ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ R IFG pars opercularis |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Noun repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with frontal damage (n = 7) T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 434 |
Findings | ↑ L posterior STG ↑ L mid temporal ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ R IFG pars opercularis |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Noun repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal damage (n = 7) T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 434 |
Findings | ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R mid temporal ↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Noun repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal damage T1 (n = 7) vs with subcortical damage T1 (n = 9) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 434 |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L posterior STG ↓ R IFG pars opercularis ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R mid temporal |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Noun repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal damage T1 (n = 7) vs with frontal damage T1 (n = 7) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 434 |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ R IFG pars opercularis ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R mid temporal |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Noun repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal damage T2 (n = 7) vs with subcortical damage T2 (n = 9) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 434 |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L posterior STG ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R Heschl's gyrus |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Noun repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal damage T2 (n = 7) vs with frontal damage T2 (n = 7) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 434 |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L posterior STG ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R Heschl's gyrus |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Noun repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with subcortical damage T1 (n = 9) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 434 |
Findings | ↑ R IFG pars opercularis ↓ L IFG ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L Heschl's gyrus ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R Heschl's gyrus |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Noun repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with frontal damage T1 (n = 7) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 434 |
Findings | ↑ R IFG pars opercularis ↓ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ L Heschl's gyrus ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R Heschl's gyrus |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Noun repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal damage T1 (n = 7) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 434; L IFG pars opercularis noted as different in text despite being significant in both groups |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L posterior STG ↓ L Heschl's gyrus ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ R mid temporal |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Noun repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with subcortical damage T2 (n = 9) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 434 |
Findings | ↓ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L Heschl's gyrus |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Noun repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with frontal damage T2 (n = 7) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 434 |
Findings | ↓ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L Heschl's gyrus |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Noun repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal damage T2 (n = 7) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 434 |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L posterior STG ↓ L Heschl's gyrus ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R Heschl's gyrus |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Noun repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with subcortical or frontal damage and good recovery (n = 11) T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on pp. 434-5 |
Findings | ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L Heschl's gyrus ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ R IFG pars opercularis |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Noun repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with subcortical or frontal damage and poor recovery (n = 5) T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on pp. 434-5 |
Findings | ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ R IFG pars opercularis |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Noun repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with subcortical and frontal damage and good recovery T1 (n = 11) vs with subcortical and frontal damage and poor recovery T1 (n = 5) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 435 |
Findings | ↑ L posterior STG ↑ L mid temporal |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Noun repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with subcortical and frontal damage and good recovery T2 (n = 11) vs with subcortical and frontal damage and poor recovery T2 (n = 5) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 435 |
Findings | ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L posterior STG ↑ L Heschl's gyrus ↑ L mid temporal ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction |
Findings notes | — |
Language | German |
Inclusion criteria | Mild to moderate aphasia on TT; at least 50 out of 150 on AAT repetition |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 24 |
Number of control participants | 0 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (piracetam group: mean 57.4 ± 13.5 years; placebo group: mean 56.3 ± 10.0 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 13; females: 11) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 24; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (T1: ~2 weeks; T2: ~8 weeks) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity only |
Language evaluation | AAT |
Aphasia severity | T1: piracetam group: TT 17.16 ± 14.31 errors; placebo group: TT 17.91 ± 15.47 errors; T2: piracetam group: TT 9.66 ± 12.62 errors; placebo group: TT 12.50 ± 16.88 errors |
Aphasia type | Not stated |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Location only |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | 10 L frontal, 6 L subcortical, 8 L temporal |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—mixed |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment, ~2 weeks post onset; T2: post-treatment, ~8 weeks post onset |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | SLT, 1 hour/day, 5 days/week, 6 weeks; 12 patients received piracetam and 12 received placebo; note that the two groups are not directly compared in any imaging or behavioral analyses |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 8 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | N/A—no intersubject normalization |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Word repetition |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | No control data are reported or cited, however the same task was used in several previous studies by this group |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia treated with pirecetam (n = 12) T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L BA 44; (2) L BA 45; (3) L ventral PrCG; (4) L HG; (5) L BA 41 and 42; (6) L BA 22; (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars triangularis ↑ L posterior STG ↑ L Heschl's gyrus |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia treated with placebo (n = 12) T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L BA 44; (2) L BA 45; (3) L ventral PrCG; (4) L HG; (5) L BA 41 and 42; (6) L BA 22; (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction |
Findings notes | — |
Language | US English |
Inclusion criteria | L IFG, possibly extending to neighboring regions |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 6 |
Number of control participants | 14 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (1 participant was reported in a previous case study) |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (mean 47 years, range 32-72 years; control participants not age-matched) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 3; females: 3) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 6; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 0.5-7.6 years) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
Language evaluation | WAB (except BDAE in 1 patient), reading pseudowords, word stem completion, verb generation, reading single words |
Aphasia severity | AQ range 74-97 (missing in 1 patient) |
Aphasia type | 3 anomic, 1 Broca's, 1 not stated, 1 recovered |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Range 10.7-117.5 cc |
Lesion location | L IFG, extending to neighboring areas in most cases |
Participants notes | Of the 14 controls, 6 were studied with PET and 8 with fMRI |
Modality | PET and fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens 961 EXACT HR; Siemens Vision 1.5 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (fMRI timing description is inconsistent) |
Design type | Mixed |
Total images acquired | PET: 10; fMRI: 384-768 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | 1 patient scanned on different PET scanner, and not scanned with fMRI; controls had different fMRI sequence to patients |
Language condition | Word stem completion (PET) |
Control condition | Rest (PET) |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | L IFG, L ITG, L anterior fusiform |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Word stem completion (fMRI) |
Control condition | Rest (fMRI) |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | L IFG, L intraparietal sulcus |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Word stem completion (PET) vs rest (PET) |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Unclear or not stated |
Software | not stated |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Correction for multiple comparisons unclear; there may be circularity in only correcting for the number of regions that seemed to show differences |
Findings | ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R IFG ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ L IFG |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Word stem completion (fMRI) vs rest (fMRI) |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia (n = 5) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Software | not stated |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 1888 |
Findings | ↑ R IFG ↓ L IFG |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Word stem completion (fMRI) vs rest (fMRI) |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia (n = 5) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) R IFG; (2) SMA |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Not stated but seem to be functional |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | Possibly circular because not clear how ROIs defined |
Findings | ↑ R IFG |
Findings notes | — |
Language | US English |
Inclusion criteria | L IFG, possibly extending to neighboring regions |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 8 |
Number of control participants | 14 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (mean 48.6 years; patients and controls not closely matched for age, unclear if difference significant) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 2; females: 6) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 8; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | No (> 6 months; actual TPO not stated) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | WAB or BDAE |
Aphasia severity | AQ range 66.5-89.0 in 6 participants, BDAE aphasia severity of 4 in 1 participant, no formal evaluation in 1 participant |
Aphasia type | 3 anomic, 3 transcortical motor, 1 Broca's, 1 not stated; most were Broca's or global acutely |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L IFG and operculum, extending to adjacent cortex and white matter in several cases |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Vision 1.5 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | 1024 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | No (not described) |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Word stem completion (novel items) |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | Activation of language areas but also other areas; frontal activation is somewhat lateralized |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Word stem completion (novel items) |
Control condition | Word stem completion (repeated items) |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Yes, matched |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | No, different |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | No whole brain analysis of this contrast, but somewhat lateralized in the sense that L but not R frontal areas showed a learning effect |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Word stem completion (novel items) vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
Behavioral data notes | Covert task but overt data acquired separately; patients less accurate and slower than controls |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Unclear or not stated |
Software | not stated |
Voxelwise p | ~.001 (z > 3) |
Cluster extent | 45 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | Monte Carlo analysis not described in detail; rather than fitting a HRF, the authors looked at the shape of the signal in the 8 volumes following each stimulus |
Findings | ↑ R IFG pars opercularis ↑ R IFG pars triangularis ↑ R insula ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R dorsal precentral ↓ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction |
Findings notes | Labels based on coordinates reported |
First level contrast | Word stem completion (novel items) vs word stem completion (repeated items) |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
Behavioral data notes | Covert task but overt data acquired separately; no interaction of group by practice for accuracy or RT |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 14 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L dorsal IFG; (2) L ventral IFG; (3) R MFG; (4) L anterior fusiform; (5) R anterior fusiform; (6) R posterior fusiform; (7) R lateral occipital; (8) R lateral cerebellum; (9) L SMA; (10) R dorsal IFG; (11) R posterior fusiform; (12) R lateral occipital; (13) R lingual; (14) L MTG |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions that were active for the main effect of word stem completion (irrespective of practice) in either group and modulated by practice in that group |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | Circular because ROIs defined in one group or the other; the L ROIs showed repetition suppression in controls but not in patients, and this difference is interpreted by the authors, but not supported statistically |
Findings | ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↓ L IFG ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus |
Findings notes | Labels based on coordinates reported |
Language | UK English |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 15 |
Number of control participants | 8 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 43-76 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 11; females: 4) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 11; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 5-76 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Not at all |
Language evaluation | PPT (Dutch), British picture vocabulary scale, Action for Dysphasic Adults lexical decision battery, auditory maximal pairs (an offline phoneme discrimination test) |
Aphasia severity | Not stated |
Aphasia type | Not stated, but all 6 patients with pSTS damage had single word comprehension deficits acutely |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Extent and location |
Lesion extent | Range 0.5-14% of total brain volume |
Lesion location | 9 L but sparing pSTS, 6 L including pSTS |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR++/966) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 16 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Higher word rates |
Control condition | Lower word rates |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | Control activation is bilateral in primary auditory cortex and the lateral STG (Fig. 1, labels 1 and 2), but there is a left-lateralized activation in the pSTS (label 3); the scatter plots in Fig. 1 show activity-word rate curves for peak pSTS voxels in individual subjects; slopes were steeper in the left hemisphere (p < 0.05), however, the identification of these voxels is not described in sufficient detail (i.e. what was the search region?) |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Higher word rates vs lower word rates |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with pSTS damage (n = 6) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 555; a FWE-corrected SPM is reported of the relationship in the 6 patients with L pSTS damage (Fig. 2), however it is masked in a way that is not explained (see figure caption), and there is no direct comparison between patients with L pSTS damage and controls |
Findings | ↑ R posterior STS |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Higher word rates vs lower word rates |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with pSTS (n = 6) damage vs without pSTS damage (n = 9) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 555; a FWE-corrected SPM is reported of the relationship in the 6 patients with L pSTS damage (Fig. 2), however it is masked in a way that is not explained (see figure caption), and there is no direct comparison between patients with L pSTS damage and patients with R pSTS damage |
Findings | ↑ R posterior STS |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Higher word rates vs lower word rates |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with pSTS damage (n = 6) vs control (n = 8) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | R pSTS |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | The peak voxel for the contrast in the R pSTS from each subject's individual analysis, but the search region is not stated |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | 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 |
Findings | ↑ R posterior STS |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Higher word rates vs lower word rates |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with pSTS damage (n = 6) vs aphasia without pSTS damage (n = 9) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | R pSTS |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | The peak voxel for the contrast in the R pSTS from each subject's individual analysis, but the search region is not stated |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | 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 |
Findings | ↑ R posterior STS |
Findings notes | — |
Language | UK English |
Inclusion criteria | Initial non-fluent aphasia due to anterior perisylvian lesion; subsequently recovered the ability to speak in sentences; patients were divided into those with and without damage to the IFG pars opercularis (POp+: n = 7; POp-: n = 7) |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 14 |
Number of control participants | 12 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (POp+: median 50 years, range 36-72 years; POp-: median 61 years, range 39-70 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 8; females: 6) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 14; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (POp+: median 39 months, range 19-134 months; POp-: median 17 months, range 6-240 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Type only |
Language evaluation | CAT, QPA |
Aphasia severity | Not stated |
Aphasia type | POp+: 4 non-fluent but not agrammatic, 2 agrammatic, 1 recovered; POp-: 4 non-fluent but not agrammatic, 3 recovered |
First stroke only? | No |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L frontal, occasionally extending into temporal |
Participants notes | 8 of 12 controls included in Blank et al. (2002) |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR++ (966)) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 15 (patients); 12 (controls) |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Propositional speech production |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | Much bilateral activation due to overt speech but pars opercularis and supratemporal plane L-lateralized |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Propositional speech production |
Control condition | Counting |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | Extrasylvian; somewhat L-lateralized |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Small volume correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ R IFG pars opercularis |
Findings notes | No voxels survived FWE correction without SVC |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia without IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Small volume correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ R IFG pars opercularis |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs without IFG POp damage (n = 7) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Small volume correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | Patients with L IFG POp damage showed numerically more signal in the R IFG POp |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs counting |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Small volume correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs counting |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia without IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Small volume correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs counting |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs without IFG POp damage (n = 7) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Small volume correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) |
Covariate | Speech rate during scan |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | R IFG pars opercularis |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Defined by flipping L IFG pars opercularis activation in controls |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia without IFG POp damage (n = 7) |
Covariate | Speech rate during scan |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | R IFG pars opercularis |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Defined by flipping L IFG pars opercularis activation in controls |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) |
Covariate | Four different QPA measures |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | R IFG pars opercularis |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Defined by flipping L IFG pars opercularis activation in controls |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
Language | French |
Inclusion criteria | No severe aphasia; no leukoaraiosis |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 8 |
Number of control participants | 6 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 58.4 ± 11.9 years, range 37-73 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 7; females: 1) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 8; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | No* (moderate limitation) (T1: 58 ± 35 days, range 11-113 days; T2: 11.7 ± 1.6 months, range 320-460 days; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Not at all |
Language evaluation | Not stated |
Aphasia severity | Not stated |
Aphasia type | T1: some prominent symptoms are listed for each patient; T2: not stated |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | 4 L subcortical, 2 L prerolandic, 2 L postrolandic |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—recovery |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: 58 ± 35 days, range 11-113 days; T2: 11.7 ± 1.6 months, range 320-460 days; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Not stated |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens ECAT HR+) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 6 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | No (lesion impact not addressed) |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Word generation |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
Control activation notes | Bilateral fronto-temporal and some other regions per text |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Word generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | .05 |
Cluster extent | 50 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | Nature of inclusive masks unclear |
Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L somato-motor ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ L cerebellum ↑ R IFG pars opercularis ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R somato-motor ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ R cerebellum |
Findings notes | Based on Figure 2 |
First level contrast | Word generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | Δ word generation accuracy |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | .001 |
Cluster extent | 100 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | Nature of inclusive masks unclear |
Findings | ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ R cerebellum ↓ L occipital ↓ L hippocampus/MTL ↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ R occipital |
Findings notes | — |
Language | UK English |
Inclusion criteria | Lesion in vicinity of L STG; no extensive frontal damage; no inferior temporal damage; able to perform tasks |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 9 |
Number of control participants | 18 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (median 58 years, range 39-72 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 8; females: 1) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 9; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 45 months, range 14-145 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity only |
Language evaluation | Subtests from CAT, subtests from PALPA, Action for dysphasic adults, TROG, PPT |
Aphasia severity | Mild |
Aphasia type | Not stated |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | Lesion in vicinity of L STG; no extensive frontal damage; no inferior temporal damage |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens HR++ 966) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 16 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Semantic decision |
Control condition | Syllable count decision |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | No, different |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | The control data provided also include the noise vocoded conditions; only ventral temporal activations are shown, which are L-lateralized |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs syllable count decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control (clear speech) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear mismatched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
Behavioral data notes | Interaction of group by task not reported for accuracy |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Small volume correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 with SVC in fusiform gyri, temporal poles, L IFG, L orbitofrontal and L SFG |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs syllable count decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Semantic decision accuracy |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Small volume correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 with SVC in fusiform gyri, temporal poles, L IFG, L orbitofrontal and L SFG |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Fixed effects; this analysis is not clearly described |
Findings | ↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus |
Findings notes | Patients who were more accurate had more activity in R anterior fusiform gyrus |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs syllable count decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control (clear speech) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear mismatched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
Behavioral data notes | Interaction of group by task not reported for accuracy |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | L fusiform gyrus |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Probabilistic brain atlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs syllable count decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control (noise vocoded) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, but attempt made |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
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) |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | L fusiform gyrus |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Probabilistic brain atlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings 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 |
Language | German |
Inclusion criteria | Global aphasia in the first three months; some improvement of comprehension within 6-12 months |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 7 |
Number of control participants | 14 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 29-67 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 6; females: 1) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 7; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 6 months-4 years) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | AABT, AAT |
Aphasia severity | TT percentile range 28-63 |
Aphasia type | 3 global, 2 Broca's, 2 unclassifiable; all had been global initially |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Philips ACS NT Gyroscan 1.5 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No* (moderate limitation) (insufficient blocks per experimental condition (3) because blocks were too long (44 s)) |
Design type | Block |
Total images acquired | 198 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | N/A—no intersubject normalization |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Semantic decision |
Control condition | Phonetic decision and lexical decision (conjunction) |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Appear similar |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Tasks were matched in controls, but no statistics reported for patients |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Yes |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | L-lateralized frontal activation, as well as temporal and parietal to a lesser extent |
Contrast notes | Conjunction of baseline conditions not described in sufficient detail |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs phonetic decision and lexical decision (conjunction) |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, no test |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Relative performance on language and control tasks unclear |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | Language network LI |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | Conjunction analyses not clearly described; in two patients, a different conjunction was used (lexical decision vs phonetic decision & semantic decision vs phonetic decision) |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | LI > 0 in 12 out of 14 controls and 5 out of 7 patients; no significant difference |
Language | UK English |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 17 |
Number of control participants | 18 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 62 ± 2.7 SEM years, range 34-75 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 12; females: 5) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 17; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 4-125 months; aphasia with temporal damage (n=8) mean 41 months; aphasia without temporal damage (n=9) mean 48 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | CAT |
Aphasia severity | Not stated |
Aphasia type | Not stated |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | No (Siemens 1.5 Tesla; model not stated) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (the calculated duration of the stimuli, the calculated duration of the acquisitions, and the stated duration of the acquisitions yield three different numbers) |
Design type | Block |
Total images acquired | 460 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Listening to narrative speech |
Control condition | Listening to reversed speech |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Yes |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | Bilateral (L > R) temporal, L IFG and L dorsal precentral |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia without temporal lobe damage (n = 9) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
Cluster extent | 5 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ L dorsal precentral ↓ R somato-motor |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 8) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
Cluster extent | 5 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ L posterior STS ↓ L mid temporal |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 8) vs without temporal lobe damage (n = 9) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
Cluster extent | 5 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ L mid temporal |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia without temporal lobe damage (n = 9) |
Covariate | Sentence comprehension (CAT) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
Cluster extent | 5 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | Conjunction with main effect of story comprehension (details hard to follow); this was a multiple regression also involving patients with temporal lobe damage |
Findings | ↑ L posterior STS ↑ R mid temporal |
Findings notes | Patients with better sentence comprehension had more activation in the L posterior STS and R mid STS |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 8) |
Covariate | Sentence comprehension (CAT) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
Cluster extent | 5 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | Conjunction with main effect of story comprehension (details hard to follow); this was a multiple regression also involving patients without temporal lobe damage |
Findings | ↑ R mid temporal |
Findings notes | Patients with better sentence comprehension had more activation in the R mid STS |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal damage (n = 8) vs without temporal damage (n = 9) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Complex |
Statistical details | Correlations were computed between activity in each voxel, and the sentence comprehension measure from the CAT, and were compared between the two aphasia groups, in regions with a main effect of story comprehension. The voxelwise threshold was p < .001, uncorrected for multiple comparisons. |
Findings | Other |
Findings notes | Activity in the L posterior STS was positively correlated with sentence comprehension in patients without temporal lobe damage, but not in patients with temporal lobe damage |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia without temporal damage (n = 9) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Complex |
Statistical details | 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. |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal damage (n = 8) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Complex |
Statistical details | 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. |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal damage (n = 8) vs without temporal damage (n = 9) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Complex |
Statistical details | 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. |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
Language | French |
Inclusion criteria | Subcortical stroke; no severe aphasia |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 7 |
Number of control participants | 0 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 52.4 ± 13 years, range 31-69 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 7; females: 0) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 7; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | No* (moderate limitation) (T1: mean 53 ± 35 days, range 11-108 days; T2: mean 12.2 ± 1.4 months; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Type only |
Language evaluation | Montreal-Toulouse Aphasia Battery |
Aphasia severity | Not stated |
Aphasia type | T1: 2 Broca's, 2 transcortical sensory, 1 anomic, 1 transcortical motor, 1 Wernicke's; T2: 4 recovered, 1 anomic, 1 transcortical motor; 1 transcortical sensory |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | 5 L non-thalamic subcortical, 2 L thalamic |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—recovery |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: mean 53 ± 35 days, range 11-108 days; T2: mean 12.2 ± 1.4 months; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Not stated |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR+) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 6 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | No (lesion impact not addressed; minimal due to lesions being small and subcortical) |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Word generation |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Word generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
Covariate | Time post onset |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | No significant correlation between time post onset and accuracy |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | 50 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L orbitofrontal ↑ L anterior temporal ↑ L occipital ↑ L anterior cingulate ↑ L cerebellum ↑ R anterior temporal ↑ R occipital |
Findings notes | More activity with longer time post onset; based on coordinates in Table 3a |
First level contrast | Word generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
Covariate | Word generation accuracy T1 |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | 50 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars triangularis ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L precuneus ↑ L Heschl's gyrus ↑ L anterior temporal ↑ R insula ↑ R posterior STG |
Findings notes | Based on coordinates in Table 3b |
First level contrast | Word generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .001 |
Cluster extent | 100 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | Description of masking unclear, but seems to be inclusively masked with T1, which seems inappropriate |
Findings | ↑ L insula ↑ L posterior STG ↑ R orbitofrontal ↑ R posterior STG ↑ R cerebellum |
Findings notes | Based on coordinates in Table 2 |
First level contrast | Word generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | Δ word generation accuracy |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | 20 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L mid temporal ↑ R anterior temporal ↑ R cerebellum |
Findings notes | Based on coordinates in Table 3c |
Language | US English |
Inclusion criteria | L IFG, possibly extending to neighboring regions |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 8 |
Number of control participants | 14 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (re-analysis of data from Blasi et al. (2002)) |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (mean 48.6 years; patients and controls not closely matched for age, unclear if difference significant) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 2; females: 6) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 8; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | No (> 6 months; actual TPO not stated) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | WAB or BDAE |
Aphasia severity | AQ range 66.5-89.0 in 6 participants, BDAE aphasia severity of 4 in 1 participant, no formal evaluation in 1 participant |
Aphasia type | 3 anomic, 3 transcortical motor, 1 Broca's, 1 not stated; most were Broca's or global acutely |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L IFG and operculum, extending to adjacent cortex and white matter in several cases |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Vision 1.5 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | 1024 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Word stem completion (novel items) |
Control condition | Word stem completion (repeated items) |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Yes, matched |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | No, different |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | No whole brain analysis of this contrast, but somewhat lateralized in the sense that L but not R frontal areas showed a learning effect |
Contrast notes | The only contrast analyzed in this paper is the "learning" contrast which corresponds to contrast 2 in Blasi et al. (2002) |
First level contrast | Word stem completion (novel items) vs word stem completion (repeated items) |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
Behavioral data notes | Covert task but overt data acquired separately; no interaction of group by practice for accuracy or RT |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Cerebellum |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Software | not stated |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 174; Monte Carlo-based thresholding not described; rather than fitting a HRF, the authors looked at the shape of the signal in the 8 volumes following each stimulus |
Findings | ↑ L cerebellum ↓ R cerebellum |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Word stem completion (novel items) vs word stem completion (repeated items) |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
Behavioral data notes | Covert task but overt data acquired separately; no interaction of group by practice for accuracy or RT |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | L cerebellum |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | L cerebellar region with a learning effect in the patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | Circular because ROIs defined in one group; rather than fitting a HRF, the authors looked at the shape of the signal in the 8 volumes following each stimulus |
Findings | ↑ L cerebellum |
Findings notes | — |
Language | UK English |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 24 |
Number of control participants | 11 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 32-85 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 18; females: 6) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 24; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | No (mean 32 months, range 2-204 months; combines subacute and chronic patients) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | CAT (missing in two participants) |
Aphasia severity | Not stated |
Aphasia type | Not stated |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | 6 L but no temporal damage, 9 L temporal damage excluding anterior temporal cortex, 9 L temporal damage including anterior temporal cortex |
Participants notes | Results of control participants previously reported in Crinion et al. (2003) |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR++/966 (16 patients and all controls) or GE Advance (8 patients)) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 12-16 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | two different scanners used for patients, but not for controls |
Language condition | Listening to narrative speech |
Control condition | Listening to reversed speech |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Yes |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | 11 participants; L-lateralized posterior temporal, bilateral anterior temporal, no frontal |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise FWE correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia without temporal lobe damage (n = 6) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all included patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise FWE correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 18) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all included patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise FWE correction |
Software | SPM99 |
Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | 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) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | L ATL |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activation in the control group |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | Same result obtained with or without excluding one outlier; two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses |
Findings | ↑ L anterior temporal |
Findings notes | More activity in patients with better auditory sentence comprehension |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | 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 |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | L ATL |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activation in the control group |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | Two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | 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) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | L ATL |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activation in the control group |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | Two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses |
Findings | ↓ L anterior temporal |
Findings notes | Patients with posterior temporal damage had less signal change |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal damage excluding anterior temporal cortex (n = 9) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | L ATL |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activation in the control group |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | Circular because ROI defined in one group; two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses |
Findings | ↓ L anterior temporal |
Findings notes | Large difference 2.7 ± 0.8 (patients) vs 6.3 ± 1.4 (controls) makes finding suggestive even in light of the circularity |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | 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) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | L ATL |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activation in the control group |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | Two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | R = 0.39; p > 0.1; seems to be a clear trend so lack of significance may reflect only lack of power |
Language | German |
Inclusion criteria | MCA; age < 70 years; able to distinguish forward vs backward speech outside the scanner; no pronounced small vessel disease |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 14 (plus 4 excluded: 1 health problems; 1 scanner noise; 2 did not tolerate fMRI) |
Number of control participants | 14 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 51.9 ± 14.2 years, range 16-68 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 11; females: 3) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 12; left: 1; other: 1) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (T1 acute: mean 1.8 days, range 0-4 days; T2 subacute: mean 12.1 days, range 3-16 days; T3 chronic: mean 321 days, range 102-513 days) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | AABT, AAT including TT, analysis of spontaneous speech, CETI, Language Recovery Score (LRS) derived from all these measures plus in-scanner task performance |
Aphasia severity | T1: LRS mean 0.44, range 0.11-0.81; 1 mild, 1 mild-moderate, 7 moderate, 3 moderate-severe, 2 severe per AAT; T2: LRS mean 0.71, range 0.33-0.92; 2 recovered, 2 recovered-mild, 2 mild, 3 mild-moderate, 3 moderate, 2 severe per AAT; T3: LRS mean 0.91, range 0.66-1.00; 8 recovered, 2 recovered-mild, 3 mild, 1 moderate per AAT |
Aphasia type | T1: 9 non-fluent, 5 fluent; T2: not stated; T3: 6 recovered, 4 minimal language impairment, 3 anomic, 1 global |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L MCA; 4 frontal (2 extending to temporoparietal); 5 temporoparietal (2 extending to subcortical); 4 striatocapsular (2 extending to cortical); 1 frontoparietal |
Participants notes | 198 patients with aphasia were screened |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—recovery |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1 acute: mean 1.8 days, range 0-4 days; T2 subacute: mean 12.1 days, range 3-16 days; T3 chronic: mean 321 days, range 102-513 days |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Standard SLT throughout the observation period including at least 3 weeks inpatient |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | 660 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment |
Control condition | Listening to reversed speech |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Reported accuracy combines the two conditions in a way that is not explained |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Yes |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | L temporal and L > R frontal |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear mismatched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .001 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L insula ↑ R IFG pars orbitalis ↑ R insula ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal |
Findings notes | R IFG/insula activation noted to survive FWE correction at p < .05 |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T3 vs T2 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear mismatched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .005 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | Threshold was lowered to reveal the R frontal change in activation |
Findings | ↓ R IFG pars orbitalis ↓ R occipital |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T3 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear mismatched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .001 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↑ R IFG pars orbitalis ↑ R insula |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear mismatched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .001 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ L IFG pars triangularis ↓ L IFG pars orbitalis ↓ L insula ↓ L posterior MTG ↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↓ R IFG pars orbitalis ↓ R insula |
Findings notes | L STG in table is actually MTG based on coordinates |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear mismatched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .005 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | Threshold was lowered to reveal L IFG |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis ↑ L insula ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R IFG |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia T3 vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear similar |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .001 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
Covariate | Language recovery score T1 |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear mismatched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .001 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L IFG ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R IFG pars triangularis |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 |
Covariate | Language recovery score T2 |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, no test |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .001 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T3 |
Covariate | Language recovery score T3 |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, no test |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .001 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | % change in language recovery score |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, no test |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .001 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R insula ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T3 vs T2 |
Covariate | % change in language recovery score |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, no test |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .001 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T3 vs T1 |
Covariate | % change in language recovery score |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, no test |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .001 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear mismatched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | Peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Familywise error (FWE) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ R insula ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal |
Findings notes | Some other ROIs also significant prior to correction for multiple comparisons; n.b. performance confound |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T3 vs T2 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear mismatched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | Peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Familywise error (FWE) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | Some other ROIs also significant prior to correction for multiple comparisons; n.b. performance confound |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T3 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear mismatched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | Peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Familywise error (FWE) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L posterior MTG |
Findings notes | Some other ROIs also significant prior to correction for multiple comparisons; n.b. performance confound |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear mismatched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | Peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | Circular because ROIs defined in one group |
Findings | ↓ L posterior MTG ↓ R IFG pars triangularis |
Findings notes | R IFG difference described in text but not table |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear mismatched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | Peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | Circular because ROIs defined in one group |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia T3 vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear similar |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy combines language and control conditions |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | Peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | Circular because ROIs defined in one group |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
Language | German |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 11 |
Number of control participants | 0 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (median 51.0 years, range 19-66 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 7; females: 4) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 11; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (median 32 months; range 6-480 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | AAT, study-specific picture naming test with 150 items |
Aphasia severity | 6 moderate, 4 mild, 1 severe |
Aphasia type | 7 Broca's, 2 Wernicke's, 1 global, 1 unclassified |
First stroke only? | Not stated |
Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Range 31.0-236.0 cc |
Lesion location | L |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~2 weeks later |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | CIAT, 3 hours/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Philips Intera 1.5 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | Block |
Total images acquired | 160 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Picture naming (trained items) |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Picture naming (untrained items) |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (trained items) vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | Δ picture naming (trained items) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Picture naming score (trained items) increased from 51.7 ± 24.8 to 78.8 ± 22.1, which was statistically significant (p < 0.0001) |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Other |
How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) perilesional area of slow wave activity determined with MEG; (2) right hemisphere homotopic to lesion; (3) right hemisphere homotopic to slow wave area; (4) remainder of left hemisphere; for one patient, maximal slow wave activity was in the right hemisphere and it is not clear how this was handled |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | The dependent measure was the number of voxels in each ROI exceeding certain thresholds that differed across subjects depending on their strength of activation; it appears that increases and decreases may have been summed, though the description is hard to follow |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | 2 of the 11 patients were classified as outliers and excluded from analyses, however no plots are provided to justify their status as outliers |
Findings | Other |
Findings notes | Improved picture naming of trained items was correlated with increased signal in 3 of the 4 ROIs, the exception being the right hemisphere ROI homotopic to the slow wave area; after removing the two outliers, only the correlation in the left hemisphere area of slow wave activity remained significant |
First level contrast | Picture naming (untrained items) vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | Δ picture naming (untrained items) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Picture naming score (untrained items) increased from 54.0 ± 24.3 to 70.5 ± 26.7, which was statistically significant (p= 0.002) |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Other |
How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) perilesional area of slow wave activity determined with MEG; (2) right hemisphere homotopic to lesion; (3) right hemisphere homotopic to slow wave area; (4) remainder of left hemisphere; for one patient, maximal slow wave activity was in the right hemisphere and it is not clear how this was handled |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | The dependent measure was the number of voxels in each ROI exceeding certain thresholds that differed across subjects depending on their strength of activation; it appears that increases and decreases may have been summed, though the description is hard to follow |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | 2 of the 11 patients were classified as outliers and excluded from analyses, however no plots are provided to justify their status as outliers |
Findings | Other |
Findings notes | Improved picture naming of untrained items was correlated with increased signal in all 4 ROIs; after removing the two outliers, none of the correlations remained significant |
Language | French |
Inclusion criteria | Naming deficit; good comprehension |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 10 |
Number of control participants | 20 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (mean 53.8 ± 14.7 years; controls were younger) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 6; females: 4) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 10; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 7-102 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
Language evaluation | Montreal-Toulouse Aphasia Battery |
Aphasia severity | Mild (but had initially been severe) |
Aphasia type | 4 anomic, 3 conduction, 2 Broca's, 1 AoS |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Range 29.9-195.2 cc |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~4 weeks later |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Lexical training, 15 minutes/day, 5 days/week, 4 weeks; the control group were trained to relearn foreign words that they had learned in school but since mostly forgotten |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens ECAT HR+) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 6 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | No (lesion impact not addressed) |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Picture naming (native in patients; relearned foreign in controls) |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | Presumably only the relearned foreign condition was used in controls (not the native condition), but this is not stated explicitly |
First level contrast | Picture naming (native in patients; relearned foreign in controls) vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | (Aphasia T2 vs T1) vs (control T2 vs T1) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, but attempt made |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Relearned foreign language was an attempt to equate to recovery in patients; still, patients improved less than controls, as shown by a significant interaction of group by time (p < .0001) |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | 30 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | Nature of control contrast not clear; negative tail of contrast was masked to exclude lesioned areas, but the mask may have been more extensive than that |
Findings | ↑ L orbitofrontal |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (native in patients; relearned foreign in controls) vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | Δ picture naming accuracy |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | 30 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | Nature of control contrast not clear |
Findings | ↑ R insula ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R orbitofrontal ↑ R anterior cingulate ↓ L intraparietal sulcus ↓ L precuneus ↓ L posterior cingulate ↓ R dorsal precentral ↓ R precuneus |
Findings notes | — |
Language | German |
Inclusion criteria | Main deficits in production rather than comprehension |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 16 (plus 8 excluded: 5 completed only one of the two sessions; 3 unable to perform the tasks) |
Number of control participants | 8 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 58.3 years; range 42-73 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 12; females: 4) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 16; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | No (> 12 months; actual TPO not stated) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | AAT, two subtests of ANELT |
Aphasia severity | TT range 5-50 |
Aphasia type | 7 anomic, 7 Broca's, 2 global; it was an inclusion criterion that the main deficits were in production |
First stroke only? | Not stated |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~2 weeks later |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | CIAT, 3 hours/day, 10 days |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Vision plus 1.5 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (minor discrepancies in description of timing) |
Design type | Block |
Total images acquired | 134 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | No (lesion impact not addressed) |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Reading words silently |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | Appears to be somewhat L-lateralized frontal, but not well visualized |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Word stem completion |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
Control activation notes | Bilateral frontal; other regions not well visualized |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Reading words silently vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | R hemisphere |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Mixed** (major limitation) |
Software | BrainVoyager QX 1.7 |
Voxelwise p | R IFG/R insula ROI: .005; elsewhere: .001 |
Cluster extent | R IFG/R insula ROI: 0.108 cc; elsewhere: none |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ R IFG ↑ R insula |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Word stem completion vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | R hemisphere |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Mixed** (major limitation) |
Software | BrainVoyager QX 1.7 |
Voxelwise p | R IFG/R insula ROI: .005; elsewhere: .001 |
Cluster extent | R IFG/R insula ROI: 0.108 cc; elsewhere: none |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ R dorsal precentral |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Reading words silently vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
Covariate | Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | R hemisphere |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | BrainVoyager QX 1.7 |
Voxelwise p | .05 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | Nature of thresholding not entirely clear, so coded according to best guess |
Findings | ↑ R IFG ↑ R insula ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R posterior MTG |
Findings notes | Increased activity correlated with more behavioral improvement |
First level contrast | Word stem completion vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
Covariate | Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | R hemisphere |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | BrainVoyager QX 1.7 |
Voxelwise p | .05 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | Nature of thresholding not entirely clear, so coded according to best guess |
Findings | ↑ R IFG ↑ R insula |
Findings notes | Increased activity correlated with more behavioral improvement |
First level contrast | Reading words silently vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | R hemisphere |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Mixed** (major limitation) |
Software | BrainVoyager QX 1.7 |
Voxelwise p | R IFG/R insula ROI: .005; elsewhere: .001 |
Cluster extent | R IFG/R insula ROI: 0.108 cc; elsewhere: none |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Word stem completion vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | R hemisphere |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Mixed** (major limitation) |
Software | BrainVoyager QX 1.7 |
Voxelwise p | R IFG/R insula ROI: .005; elsewhere: .001 |
Cluster extent | R IFG/R insula ROI: 0.108 cc; elsewhere: none |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Reading words silently vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
Covariate | Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | L IFG/insula or L perilesional |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Peak activations in individual patients in L IFG/insula or L perilesional regions (somewhat unclear) |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Word stem completion vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
Covariate | Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | L IFG/insula or L perilesional |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Peak activations in individual patients in L IFG/insula or L perilesional regions (somewhat unclear) |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Reading words silently vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | Δ overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) R IFG/insula; (2) R precentral; (3) R MTG; (4) L IFG/insula or L perilesional |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions where T1 activation was correlated with subsequent improvement, along with the previously defined left hemisphere ROI |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | Circular because functional ROIs based on related contrast on same data |
Findings | ↓ R posterior MTG |
Findings notes | Decreased activity over time correlated with more behavioral improvement |
First level contrast | Word stem completion vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | Δ overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1, 2) two clusters within R IFG/insula ROI; (3) L IFG/insula or L perilesional |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions where T1 activation was correlated with subsequent improvement, along with the previously defined left hemisphere ROI |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | Circular because functional ROIs based on related contrast on same data |
Findings | ↓ R IFG ↓ R insula |
Findings notes | Decreased activity over time correlated with more behavioral improvement |
Language | French |
Inclusion criteria | Only part of L MCA; able to perform word generation; no severe aphasia |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 13 |
Number of control participants | 0 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (7 out of 13 patients appear to represent the same data reported in de Boissezon et al. (2005)) |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 31.2-74.2 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 12; females: 1) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 13; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | No* (moderate limitation) (T1: mean 64 ± 32 days; T2: mean 11.8 ± 1.4 months; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | Montreal-Toulouse Aphasia Battery |
Aphasia severity | Not stated |
Aphasia type | T1: 3 transcortical motor, 2 anomic, 2 Broca's, 2 transcortical sensory, 2 Wernicke's, 1 conduction, 1 agrammatic; T2: not stated |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Range 0.9-43.4 cc |
Lesion location | L MCA (7 subcortical, 6 cortical) |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—recovery |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: mean 64 ± 32 days; T2: mean 11.8 ± 1.4 months; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Community SLT; 45 minutes/day, 1-3 days/week |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR+) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 6 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | No (lesion impact not addressed) |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Word generation |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
Control activation notes | Control data in Cardebat et al. (2003); bilateral fronto-temporal and some other regions per text |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Word generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with "good recovery" (n = 6) T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (the "good recovery" group showed more improvement than the "poor recovery" group in terms of accuracy on the task, but the distinction was not borne out in behavioral data more generally) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | P = 0.07 |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .001 |
Cluster extent | 100 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | Contrast may not have included resting condition; inappropriate masking |
Findings | ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R angular gyrus ↑ R occipital ↑ R thalamus ↑ R basal ganglia ↓ L cerebellum |
Findings notes | Based on coordinates in Table 5 |
First level contrast | Word generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with "poor recovery" (n = 7) T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (the "poor recovery" group showed less improvement than the "good recovery" group in terms of accuracy on the task, but the distinction was not borne out in behavioral data more generally) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .001 |
Cluster extent | 100 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | Contrast may not have included resting condition; inappropriate masking |
Findings | ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R somato-motor ↑ R cerebellum ↓ R basal ganglia |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Word generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Word generation accuracy |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | 100 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | Each patient's two sessions may be entered into the model without accounting for the dependence between them |
Findings | ↑ L supramarginal gyrus ↑ L occipital ↑ L anterior cingulate ↑ R insula ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R posterior STG ↑ R anterior temporal ↑ R occipital ↓ L cerebellum |
Findings notes | — |
Language | US English |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 11 |
Number of control participants | 10 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 58.8 ± 14.7 years, range 33-78 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 6; females: 5) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 10-101 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | WAB; BNT |
Aphasia severity | AQ range 31.8-91.5 |
Aphasia type | 6 anomic, 4 Broca's, 1 transcortical motor; alternatively: 6 fluent, 5 non-fluent |
First stroke only? | Not stated |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Range 3.0-342.2 cc |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | No (not stated) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (timing of picture presentation not clearly explained) |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | 120 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | sparse sampling |
Language condition | Picture naming (correct trials) |
Control condition | Viewing scrambled images |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | No |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | Control data in Fridriksson et al. (2007); motor activations are prominent; there is some L frontal activation but little temporal activation in either hemisphere |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Picture naming (phonemic paraphasias) |
Control condition | Picture naming (correct trials) |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | No, by design |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | N/A |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | N/A |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | N/A |
Control activation notes | Control data N/A because controls do not typically make errors |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Picture naming (semantic paraphasias) |
Control condition | Picture naming (correct trials) |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | No, by design |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | N/A |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | N/A |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | N/A |
Control activation notes | Control data N/A because controls do not typically make errors |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, correct trials only |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p |
Software | FSL (FEAT 5.4) |
Voxelwise p | ~.01 (z > 2.3) |
Cluster extent | Based on GRFT |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (phonemic paraphasias) vs picture naming (correct trials) |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional performance-defined conditions |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, by design |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p |
Software | FSL (FEAT 5.4) |
Voxelwise p | ~.01 (z > 2.3) |
Cluster extent | Based on GRFT |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L superior parietal ↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↑ L occipital |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (semantic paraphasias) vs picture naming (correct trials) |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional performance-defined conditions |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, by design |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p |
Software | FSL (FEAT 5.4) |
Voxelwise p | ~.01 (z > 2.3) |
Cluster extent | Based on GRFT |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↑ R occipital |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Picture naming accuracy |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, correct trials only |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 5 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) R IFG/insula; (2) R motor/premotor; (3) R SMA; (4) R inferior parietal; (5) R superior temporal |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions activated for picture naming vs viewing scrambled images in aphasia |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ R IFG ↑ R insula |
Findings notes | R IFG showed more activation in patients who produced more correct responses |
Language | German |
Inclusion criteria | Moderate to severe anomia |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 8 |
Number of control participants | 9 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 34-67 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 5; females: 3) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 8; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 1.8-6.9 years) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | AAT |
Aphasia severity | 6 moderate-severe, 2 severe |
Aphasia type | 7 Broca's, 1 global |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~2 weeks later; T3: 8 months after the end of treatment |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Intensive anomia training; 3 hours/day; 2 weeks |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Philips Intera 3 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (total images acquired not stated) |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | probably ~360, but not stated |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Picture naming (trained items) |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | Table of coordinates only |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Picture naming (untrained items) |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | Table of coordinates only |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (trained items) vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | Subsequent outcome (T2) picture naming of trained items outside the scanner |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (the logic behind correlating activation changes and language outcome is unclear) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, no test |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Mixed** (major limitation) |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .05, but at least one voxel in the cluster had to be p < .001 |
Cluster extent | 0.270 cc |
Statistical details | There was an exclusive mask based on activation changes for untrained pictures, but it is unclear what the behavioral covariate was for the mask generation, nor were the regions in the mask reported |
Findings | ↑ L occipital ↑ L hippocampus/MTL ↑ R precuneus ↑ R occipital ↑ R posterior cingulate ↑ R hippocampus/MTL |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (untrained items) vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T3 vs T1 |
Covariate | Subsequent outcome (T3) picture naming of trained items outside the scanner |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (the logic behind correlating activation changes and language outcome is unclear) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, no test |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Mixed** (major limitation) |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | .05, but at least one voxel in the cluster had to be p < .001 |
Cluster extent | 0.270 cc |
Statistical details | There was an exclusive mask based on activation changes for untrained pictures, but it is unclear what the behavioral covariate was for the mask generation, nor were the regions in the mask reported |
Findings | ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ R inferior parietal lobule ↓ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↓ R basal ganglia |
Findings notes | — |
Language | German |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 12 |
Number of control participants | 12 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (mean 49 + 14 years, range 30-71 years; controls were younger) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 9; females: 3) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | No (mean 1.9 ± 1.4 years, range 0.2-3.7 years; one non-chronic patient is included) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | AAT |
Aphasia severity | Not stated |
Aphasia type | 3 global, 3 Wernicke's, 2 amnestic, 2 Broca's, 2 unclassified |
First stroke only? | Not stated |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L MCA, with greatest overlap in the posterior STG |
Participants notes | 15 controls were scanned but 3 were randomly excluded to match group sizes for jICA. |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (CTI-Siemens HR+) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 9 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Lexical decision (words vs pseudowords) |
Control condition | Lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words) |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | The contrast activated a ventral part of the L IFG, along with L anterior cingulate and L DLPFC |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Lexical decision (words vs pseudowords) vs lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words) |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
Software | SPM5 |
Voxelwise p | .001 |
Cluster extent | 0.64 cc |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ R posterior STG ↑ R Heschl's gyrus |
Findings notes | Activation is 1105 voxels (> 8 cc) so quite convincing, but when the contrast was examined in the patient group, this region was not activated. |
First level contrast | Lexical decision (words vs pseudowords) vs lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words) |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Complex |
Statistical details | Joint ICA was performed on structural and functional contrast images using FIT 1.1b. Only 1 of the 8 components differed between groups in its loadings and was interpretable. The structural part of this component related to the patients' lesions. The functional part was thresholded at voxelwise p < .001 (CDT), arbitrary minimum cluster extent = 0.64 cc. |
Findings | Other |
Findings notes | The component that differed between groups showed more activation for patients than controls in the L anterior temporal lobe, L cerebellum, R posterior STG, R anterior temporal lobe, R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus, R cerebellum, and R brainstem, and less activation in patients than controls in the L IFG, L anterior temporal lobe, L occipital lobe, L anterior cingulate, L cerebellum, L thalamus, and R IFG. |
Language | UK English |
Inclusion criteria | Comprehension deficit per CAT and TROG (1 patient did not meet this criterion); anterolateral superior temporal cortex spared |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 16 (plus 8 excluded: lesions involved L anterolateral superior temporal cortex) |
Number of control participants | 11 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (reanalysis of subset of dataset from Crinion et al. (2006)) |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (mean 65.8 ± 2.0 SEM years; controls were younger) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 11; females: 5) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 16; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | No (mean 28.8 ± 9.2 months SEM; minimum time post onset not reported, but some patients in Crinion et al. (2006) were subacute) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Not at all |
Language evaluation | CAT, TROG |
Aphasia severity | Not stated |
Aphasia type | Not stated |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Patients with positive anterior temporal interconnectivity: mean 93.3 ± 24.0 cc; patients with negative anterior temporal interconnectivity: mean 96.1 ± 27.6 cc |
Lesion location | L not including anterolateral superior temporal cortex; maximal overlap in posterior superior temporal cortex |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR++/966 (10 patients and all controls) or GE Advance (6 patients)) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 12-16 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | two different scanners used for patients, but not for controls |
Language condition | Listening to narrative speech |
Control condition | Listening to reversed speech |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Yes |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | 11 participants; L-lateralized posterior temporal, bilateral anterior temporal, no frontal |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) 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) |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | Somewhat circular because ROIs were defined only in regions where controls showed significant connectivity (even though ROIs were anatomical) |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | L IFG pars triangularis almost reached significance (p = .053) for more activation in patients |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Auditory sentence comprehension |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) 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) |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L anterior temporal |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Written sentence comprehension |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) 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) |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Auditory single word comprehension |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) 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) |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | L anterior temporal p = .08 |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Auditory syntactic comprehension |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) 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) |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | L anterior temporal p = .09 |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Connectivity between L and R ATL |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) R anterior superior temporal cortex |
How are the ROI(s) 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) |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Time post onset |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | L anterior superior temporal cortex |
How are the ROI(s) 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) |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Lesion volume |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | L anterior superior temporal cortex |
How are the ROI(s) 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) |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with positive anterior temporal interconnectivity (n = 8) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) 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) |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | 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 |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars triangularis |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia with negative anterior temporal interconnectivity (n = 8) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) 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) |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | 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 |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with positive anterior temporal interconnectivity (n = 8) vs with negative anterior temporal interconnectivity (n = 8) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) 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) |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | Excluded 4 patients with L IFG damage |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars triangularis |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Lesion status of each voxel |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Complex |
Statistical details | VLSM with FDR correction was used to identify any regions in which damage was predictive of L anterior temporal activation. |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
Language | Cantonese |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 7 |
Number of control participants | 0 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 63 ± 10 years, range 56-79 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 5; females: 2) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 7; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 17 ± 8 months, range 8-28 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity only |
Language evaluation | Cantonese Aphasia Battery (modified WAB) |
Aphasia severity | 5 patients had AQ > 75, 2 had AQ < 30 |
Aphasia type | Not stated |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Location only |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | 3 L MCA, 2 L frontal, 2 L basal ganglia |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~10 weeks later |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Acupuncture, 3 sessions/week, 8 weeks |
Is the scanner described? | No (not stated) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (inconsistent information regarding timing) |
Design type | Block |
Total images acquired | 90? |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | No (lesion impact not addressed) |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Answering questions from Cantonese Aphasia Battery |
Control condition | Visual decision |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Answering questions from Cantonese Aphasia Battery vs visual decision |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | Δ WAB AQ |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (no treatment effect) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Unclear or not stated |
Software | SPM2 |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Stated to be corrected p < 0.05, but the nature of correction is not described; it is not entirely clear whether the functional measure was the difference between T1 and T2 (we assume it is); it is also not clear whether or not 2 patients with low AQ were excluded (we assume not) |
Findings | ↑ L posterior MTG |
Findings notes | Finding based on table; additional small activations are shown in figure but not table |
Language | US English |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 19 (plus 7 excluded: 6 for making fewer than 5 correct responses in one or more sessions; 1 for excessive head motion) |
Number of control participants | 0 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes ("several" patients overlapped with those reported by Fridriksson et al. (2009, 2010)) |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 59.7 ± 12.3 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 12; females: 14) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (> 8 months; actual TPO not stated) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
Language evaluation | WAB |
Aphasia severity | AQ mean 60.4 ± 25.6 (including excluded patients) |
Aphasia type | 11 anomic, 10 Broca's, 3 conduction, 1 transcortical motor, 1 Wernicke's (including excluded patients) |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | Demographic data includes excluded patients |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment/~4 weeks later; note that there were two separate sessions per time point, as well as another two sessions midway through treatment that are not analyzed in this paper |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Anomia treatment using a cueing hierarchy, 3 hours/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks, with a 1-week gap between the two weeks |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (timing of stimuli within the silent periods is unclear) |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | 120 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | sparse sampling |
Language condition | Picture naming (correct trials) |
Control condition | Viewing abstract pictures |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | No |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | Control data in Fridriksson et al. (2007); motor activations are prominent; there is some L frontal activation but little temporal activation in either hemisphere. |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | Δ picture naming accuracy |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, correct trials only |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p |
Software | FSL 4.1 |
Voxelwise p | ~.01 (z > 2.3) |
Cluster extent | Based on GRFT |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ L supramarginal gyrus ↑ L intraparietal sulcus ↑ L superior parietal ↑ L precuneus |
Findings notes | Activated regions were on the borders on the lesion distribution in the 19 included patients |
Language | US English |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 15 |
Number of control participants | 9 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 61.9 years, range 41-81 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (males: 7; females: 8; not stated for controls) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 29.7 months, > 6 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
Language evaluation | WAB |
Aphasia severity | AQ mean 77.1, range 47.1-93.7 |
Aphasia type | 10 anomic, 3 Broca's, 2 conduction |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (exact timing of picture presentation not specified) |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | 120 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | sparse sampling |
Language condition | Picture naming (correct trials) |
Control condition | Viewing abstract pictures |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | L-lateralized frontal and temporal activations, but also bilateral visual, motor and auditory |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Picture naming accuracy |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, correct trials only |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p |
Software | FSL 4.1 |
Voxelwise p | ~.02 (z > 2) |
Cluster extent | Based on GRFT |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis ↑ L occipital ↑ L anterior cingulate |
Findings 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 |
First level contrast | Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Picture naming accuracy |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, correct trials only |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | 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 are the ROI(s) defined? | Based on SPM analysis 1 |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | 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 |
Findings | Other |
Findings notes | Patients with better naming showed greater activation than controls, while the patients with poorer naming showed less activation than controls. |
First level contrast | Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Lesion status of each voxel |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, correct trials only |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Complex |
Statistical details | VLSM was used to identify any regions in which damage was predictive of activation in the regions identified in SPM analysis 1, considered as a single ROI. There was no correction for multiple comparisons, and the analysis is appropriately presented as exploratory. |
Findings | Other |
Findings notes | Only in the L IFG pars opercularis was damage predictive of reduced activation in the potentially compensatory network. |
Language | UK English |
Inclusion criteria | Lesion in vicinity of L STG; no extensive frontal damage; no inferior temporal damage; able to perform tasks |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 9 |
Number of control participants | 18 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (additional analysis of same dataset as Sharp et al. (2004)) |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (median 58 years, range 39-72 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 8; females: 1) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 9; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 45 months, range 14-145 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity only |
Language evaluation | Subtests from CAT, subtests from PALPA, Action for dysphasic adults, TROG, PPT |
Aphasia severity | Mild |
Aphasia type | Not stated |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | Lesion in vicinity of L STG; no extensive frontal damage; no inferior temporal damage |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens HR++ 966) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 16 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Semantic decision (clear in patients; average of clear and noise vocoded in controls) |
Control condition | Syllable count decision (clear in patients; average of clear and noise vocoded in controls) |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | No, different |
Behavioral data notes | Significant differences per Sharp et al. (2004) |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | Not stated exactly what contrast was used in controls |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision (clear in patients; average of clear and noise vocoded in controls) vs syllable count decision (clear in patients; average of clear and noise vocoded in controls) |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, but attempt made |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Appear similar |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy and RT were not significantly different for the semantic task; statistics are not reported for the syllable counting task, but the data provided suggest that accuracy was probably not matched, while RT probably was |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Other |
How many ROIs are there? | 12 |
What are the ROI(s)? | Functional connectivity between pairs of spared nodes of the L hemisphere semantic network and R hemisphere homotopic regions: (1) L SFG-L AG; (2) L SFG-L IFG; (3) L SFG-L IT; (4) L AG-L IFG; (5) L AG-L IT; (6) L IFG-L IT; (7-12) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Partial correlations between nodes |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | Other |
Findings notes | Patients showed greater connectivity between L SFG and L AG than controls while performing the semantic task; this was not the case for the syllable counting task, however connectivity during performance of the two tasks was not compared directly |
Language | US English |
Inclusion criteria | Agrammatic |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 6 |
Number of control participants | 12 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 54 years, range 38-66 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 5; females: 1) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 6; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 6-146 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | WAB, NAVS, narrative language sample |
Aphasia severity | AQ range 66.8-85.0 |
Aphasia type | All agrammatic; per WAB scores provided: 3 Broca's, 3 unclassified |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | 5 L MCA, 1 R MCA with aphasia |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, 9-15 weeks later |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Treatment of underlying forms |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (total images acquired not stated) |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | not stated |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Auditory sentence-picture matching (all three sentence types) |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Auditory sentence-picture matching (all three sentence types) vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear similar |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Appear similar |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 18 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L BA 7; (2) L BA 9; (3) L BA 13; (4) L BA 21; (5) L BA 22; (6) L BA 39; (7) L BA 40; (8) L BA 44; (9) L BA 45; (10-18) homotopic counterparts |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas; proportion of patients who showed increases and decreases in (parts of) each ROI in individual fixed effects SPM analyses |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L angular gyrus ↑ L superior parietal ↑ L mid temporal ↑ R supramarginal gyrus ↑ R superior parietal ↓ L insula ↓ L posterior STG |
Findings notes | These are the regions involved in what the authors interpret as a "general shift" |
Language | UK English |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 14 |
Number of control participants | 10 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 54 years, range 33-76 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 11; females: 3) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 14; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 7 years, range 1.4-37.3 years) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Not at all |
Language evaluation | Sentence-picture matching, lexical decision, phonological similarity, word repetition, sentence repetition, morphological similarity, semantic categorization, sentence acceptability |
Aphasia severity | Not stated |
Aphasia type | Not stated |
First stroke only? | Not stated |
Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L |
Participants notes | 2 of the 14 patients were not stroke, but were post resective surgery |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No* (moderate limitation) (there was only one block per condition per run, so condition could be confounded with low frequency drift; also, the length of the sentences is not stated so it is unclear how well the HRF peak aligns with the sparse acquisitions) |
Design type | Block |
Total images acquired | 69 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | sparse sampling |
Language condition | Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word |
Control condition | Listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Appear similar |
Behavioral data notes | There appears to be a small RT difference (control condition slower) |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Yes |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
Control activation notes | There are more control participants in another paper (Tyler et al., 2010, Cereb Cortex), but the relevant contrast does not seem to be shown in that paper |
Contrast notes | The contrast is intended to identify regions involved in syntactic processing, however it seems possible that there are semantic differences between these conditions also |
First level contrast | Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Appear similar |
Behavioral data notes | The two groups showed similar differences between RTs in the two conditions of the contrast |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Software | SPM5 |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on pp. 3402-3; each group is presented at voxelwise p < .005 (CDT), cluster-corrected p < .05 with GRFT |
Findings | ↑ R IFG pars triangularis ↑ R IFG pars orbitalis ↓ L posterior MTG |
Findings notes | Several other potential differences are apparent in the figure, but only the differences tabulated are interpreted in the text |
First level contrast | Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | RT difference between early and late targets on grammatical but meaningless sentences (a measure of syntactic processing) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Analyses focuses on RT differences between early and late targets, not on mean RT per se |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | L IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activated for the same contrast |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars triangularis ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis |
Findings notes | L IFG showed more activation in patients that had a larger target position effect (indicative of better syntactic processing) |
First level contrast | Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | RT difference between early and late targets on normal sentences |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | L IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activated for the same contrast |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | RT difference between early and late targets on scrambled sentences |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | L IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activated for the same contrast |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Damage to L IFG, estimated from T1 signal |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | R IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activated for the same contrast |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | No correlation (p = .57) |
First level contrast | Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Syntactic processing (presumably the target position effect, though this is not stated) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | R IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activated for the same contrast |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | No correlation (p = .41) |
First level contrast | Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Lesion status of each voxel |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Complex |
Statistical details | VBM was used to identify any regions where damage was predictive of activation in the L IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis. Tissue integrity was quantified in terms of T1 signal. Clusterwise correction was used, which is not appropriate for VBM. |
Findings | Other |
Findings notes | Only in the L IFG itself was damage predictive of reduced activation in the L IFG. |
Language | Dutch |
Inclusion criteria | MCA; mRS < 3; able to perform at least 2 out of the 3 tasks |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 13 |
Number of control participants | 13 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 53 ± 14 years, range 29-74 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 4; females: 9) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (right: 13; left: 0; not stated for controls) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 1.3-4.7 years) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | AAT, BNT, TT |
Aphasia severity | 4 moderate, 4 severe, 3 recovered, 2 mild; all had aphasia initially |
Aphasia type | 5 anomic, 4 Broca's, 3 recovered, 1 Wernicke's |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Range 6.0-167.3 cc |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | Behavioral data (TT and a naming measure) were also acquired subacutely (mean 26 ± 18 days, range 5-56 days) |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Philips Achieva 3 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | Block |
Total images acquired | 3036 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | breath holding scan also done to measure hemodynamic responsiveness |
Language condition | Written word-picture matching |
Control condition | Visual decision |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy not reported for control condition |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | Not clearly stated that language tasks were contrasted only with arrow decision task and not rest for the first two contrasts, but this can be inferred |
Language condition | Semantic decision |
Control condition | Visual decision |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy not reported for control condition |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | Not clearly stated that language tasks were contrasted only with arrow decision task and not rest for the first two contrasts, but this can be inferred |
Language condition | Verb generation |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Written word-picture matching vs visual decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy not reported for control condition |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Mixed |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ L IFG ↓ LI (language network) ↓ LI (frontal) |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs visual decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy not reported for control condition |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Mixed |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ L IFG ↓ LI (language network) ↓ LI (frontal) |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Mixed |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ L IFG ↓ LI (language network) ↓ LI (frontal) |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Written word-picture matching vs visual decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Picture-word matching accuracy |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Mixed |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs visual decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Semantic decision accuracy |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Mixed |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Written word-picture matching vs visual decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Overall language measure |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Mixed |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs visual decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Overall language measure |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Mixed |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | Not clear if it was LI for whole language network |
Findings | ↑ LI (language network) |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Overall language measure |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Mixed |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Written word-picture matching vs visual decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Lesion volume |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG) |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs visual decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Lesion volume |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG) |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Lesion volume |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG) |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Written word-picture matching vs visual decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Damage to L hemisphere language regions |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG) |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs visual decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Damage to L hemisphere language regions |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG) |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Damage to L hemisphere language regions |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG) |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Written word-picture matching vs visual decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Previous (current vs subacute) Δ naming |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs visual decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Previous (current vs subacute) Δ naming |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L IFG |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Previous (current vs subacute) Δ naming |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L IFG |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Written word-picture matching vs visual decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Previous (current vs subacute) Δ TT |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function; TT not optimal measure of overall language function) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs visual decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Previous (current vs subacute) Δ TT |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function; TT not optimal measure of overall language function) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L IFG ↑ R IFG |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Previous (current vs subacute) Δ TT |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function; TT not optimal measure of overall language function) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | WFU pickatlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L IFG ↑ R IFG |
Findings notes | — |
Language | UK English |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 14 |
Number of control participants | 15 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (reanalysis of same dataset from Tyler et al. (2011)) |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 56 ± 12 years, range 35-77 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 11; females: 3) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 14; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 8 ± 9 years, range 2-40 years) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Not at all |
Language evaluation | Sentence-picture matching, grammaticality judgment, lexical decision, phonological discrimination, semantic categorization, sentence repetition, word repetition |
Aphasia severity | Not stated |
Aphasia type | Not stated |
First stroke only? | Not stated |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | 1 patient had post-surgical haematoma rather than stroke (per Tyler et al., 2011) |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (length of stimuli not described) |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | 1059 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | No (lacks explanation of event durations) |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") |
Control condition | Listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Yes |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | Control data in Tyler et al. (2011); L frontal and temporal |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between subordinate and dominant sentences (dominance effect) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p |
Software | SPM8 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | Based on GRFT |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L insula ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ L mid temporal |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Modulation of L IFG connectivity by dominance effect |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Complex |
Statistical details | 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. |
Findings | Other |
Findings notes | 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 |
First level contrast | Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Modulation of L pMTG connectivity by dominance effect |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Complex |
Statistical details | A similar PPI analysis was carried out with the L pMTG as the seed region. Thresholding was the same as in the previous analysis. |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
Language | US English |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 8 |
Number of control participants | 8 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 40-79 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (males: 5; females: 3; control sex not stated, but reported to be matched) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 8; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 48.3 months, range 30-78 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | WAB, BNT, portions of PALPA, PPT, CLQT |
Aphasia severity | AQ range 74.0-97.8 |
Aphasia type | 6 anomic, 2 recovered |
First stroke only? | Not stated |
Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Range 23-45 cc |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | No (GE 3 Tesla; model not stated) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No* (moderate limitation) (control events took place in the inter-trial interval between language events, and may have been systematically confounded in timing; the total number of functional images acquired is not stated) |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | not stated |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | No (only correct trials are included but it is not stated how incorrect trials were modeled; in general, it is not stated whether the control events were modeled at all) |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Picture naming (correct trials) |
Control condition | Viewing scrambled images and saying "pass" |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy/RT not reported for control task |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
Control activation notes | Reporting is selective, but appears mostly bilateral with slight L-lateralization of language areas |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Semantic decision (correct trials) |
Control condition | Visual decision |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy/RT not reported for control task |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | Clearly lateralized frontal activation, but very modest temporal activation |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "pass" |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Lesion volume |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, correct trials only |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Mixed |
How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | Harvard–Oxford atlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ R supramarginal gyrus ↑ R angular gyrus ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ LI (language network) |
Findings notes | Larger lesions were associated with more R posterior perisylvian activation |
First level contrast | Semantic decision (correct trials) vs visual decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Lesion volume |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, correct trials only |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Mixed |
How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (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 are the ROI(s) defined? | Harvard–Oxford atlas |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
Language | US English |
Inclusion criteria | Moderate aphasia, L MCA |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 8 (plus 3 excluded: 2 metallic artifact; 1 seizure at time of stroke) |
Number of control participants | 0 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 54.4 ± 12.7 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 4; females: 4) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 8; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 5.3 ± 3.6 years, > 12 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
Language evaluation | BNT; phonemic fluency, semantic fluency, complex ideation from BDAE, PPVT, communicative activities log |
Aphasia severity | Moderate |
Aphasia type | 4 Broca's, 3 anomic, 1 anomic/conduction |
First stroke only? | Not stated |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~2 weeks later |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | RTMS to residual activation near Broca's area, 5 sessions/week, 2 weeks |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Varian Unity INOVA 4 T) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (timing not clear, because previous studies cited are not all identical in terms of timing) |
Design type | Block |
Total images acquired | not stated |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | No (lesion impact not addressed) |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Semantic decision |
Control condition | Tone decision |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Appear similar |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Yes |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | Control data in Kim et al. (2011) and Szaflarski et al. (2008); L frontal and temporal, plus other semantic regions |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (patients improved only on semantic fluency) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Language and control tasks both matched |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | in-house |
Voxelwise p | .05 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | The figure shows a cutoff of z > 10, which would not correspond to p < .05; increases and decreases in Figure 3 do not accord with the data from T1 and T2 in Figure 2, raising concerns about the implementation of the analyses; there is no explicit description of the second level analysis |
Findings | ↑ L IFG ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L orbitofrontal ↑ L inferior parietal lobule ↑ L supramarginal gyrus ↑ L angular gyrus ↑ L precuneus ↑ L occipital ↑ L anterior cingulate ↑ L basal ganglia ↑ L hippocampus/MTL ↑ R dorsal precentral ↑ R precuneus ↑ R occipital ↑ R basal ganglia ↑ R hippocampus/MTL ↓ R insula ↓ R supramarginal gyrus ↓ R posterior STG |
Findings notes | Based on a combination of coordinates in Table 2, and Figure 3 |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (patients improved only on semantic fluency) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Language and control tasks both matched |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporal LI; (3) language network LI |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | T1 LI (temporal) is reported to be negative, which does not accord with the voxelwise analysis in Figure 2; increases and decreases in Figure 3 do not accord with the data from T1 and T2 in Figure 2, raising concerns about the implementation of the analyses |
Findings | ↑ LI (language network) ↑ LI (frontal) ↑ LI (temporal) |
Findings notes | — |
Language | UK English |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 14 |
Number of control participants | 15 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (not stated, but it seems like most of the patients also participated in Tyler et al. (2010)) |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 56 years, range 34-77 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 11; females: 3) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 14; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 7 years, > 1.5 years) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Not at all |
Language evaluation | Sentence-picture matching, grammaticality judgment, lexical decision, phonological discrimination, semantic categorization, sentence repetition, word repetition |
Aphasia severity | Not stated |
Aphasia type | Not stated |
First stroke only? | Not stated |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | 1 patient had post-surgical haematoma rather than stroke |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (run length not stated; length of stimuli not described) |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | not stated but 1059 per Papoutsi et al. (2011) |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | No (lacks explanation of event durations) |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) |
Control condition | Listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | L frontal and parietal; R frontal (but L > R); no L temporal |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") |
Control condition | Listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | L frontal and parietal; no L temporal |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") |
Control condition | Listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Yes |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | L frontal, temporal and parietal, R frontal (but L > R) |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") |
Control condition | Listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Yes |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | L frontal and temporal |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Software | SPM5 |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 423 |
Findings | ↓ L IFG |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Software | SPM5 |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 423 |
Findings | ↓ L IFG |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Software | SPM5 |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 423 |
Findings | ↓ L IFG |
Findings notes | Lack of patient activation in pMTG implied in text, but this activation looks fairly similar in patients and controls (c.f. Figure 3C vs 2C) |
First level contrast | Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Software | SPM5 |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 423 |
Findings | ↓ L IFG ↓ L posterior MTG |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Performance on acceptability judgment task (difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between ambiguous and unambiguous sentences) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p |
Software | SPM5 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | Based on GRFT |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars triangularis ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis ↑ R insula ↑ R mid temporal |
Findings notes | Also L pMTG but this did not reach significance |
First level contrast | Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Performance on sentence-picture matching task |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
Software | SPM5 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | 30 (units not stated) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis ↑ L posterior MTG ↑ R insula ↑ R posterior STG ↑ R mid temporal |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Performance on word monitoring task |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
Software | SPM5 |
Voxelwise p | .05 |
Cluster extent | 10 (units not stated) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis ↑ L posterior MTG ↑ R insula ↑ R mid temporal |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between subordinate and dominant sentences (dominance effect) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p |
Software | SPM5 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | Based on GRFT |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Performance on acceptability judgment task (difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between ambiguous and unambiguous sentences) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) IFG pars opercularis; (2) IFG pars triangularis; (3) IFG pars orbitalis |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | AAL |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars triangularis ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Difference in percentage of unacceptable judgments between subordinate and dominant sentences (dominance effect) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Anatomical |
How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) IFG pars opercularis; (2) IFG pars triangularis; (3) IFG pars orbitalis |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | AAL |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
Language | German |
Inclusion criteria | Age 55-85 |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 10 (plus 4 excluded: 3 malfunction of TMS device or claustrophobia; 1 recovered nearly completely prior to intervention) |
Number of control participants | 0 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 59-83 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 5; females: 5) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 10; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 18-97 days; patients at different subacute stages of recovery) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Type only |
Language evaluation | AAT |
Aphasia severity | T1: TT range 0-45 errors; T2: TT range 0-44 errors |
Aphasia type | T1: 5 Wernicke's, 2 Broca's, 2 global, 1 amnestic fluent; T2: not stated |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Extent and location |
Lesion extent | Range 0.7-88.9 cc |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—mixed |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/subacute (range 18-97 days post onset); T2: post-treatment, ~2 weeks later |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Individualized SLT, 45 minutes/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks; 6 patients underwent rTMS to the R IFG pars triangularis; 4 received vertex (sham) rTMS |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 8 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Verb generation |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | Control data in Herholz et al. (1996); insufficient to fully validate the contrast |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 (regardless of rTMS) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) IFG LI; (2) superior temporal LI; (3) SMA LI |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia treated with rTMS (n = 6) T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) IFG LI; (2) superior temporal LI; (3) SMA LI |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | (Aphasia with R IFG rTMS (n = 6) T2 vs T1) vs (with sham rTMS (n = 4) T2 vs T1) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) IFG LI; (2) superior temporal LI; (3) SMA LI |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ LI (frontal) |
Findings notes | IFG LI was stable in the stimulation group, but shifted to the R in the sham group, yielding a significant difference between groups |
Language | US English |
Inclusion criteria | MCA; moderate-severe aphasia; mRS ≤ 3 |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 16 |
Number of control participants | 32 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes ("part of a larger ongoing study", may overlap with other studies from this group) |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 54.4 ± 9.5 years, range 38-78 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 9; females: 7) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 16; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 3.7 ± 3.5 years, range 0.5-11.4 years) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
Language evaluation | TT, PPVT, BNT, semantic and phonemic fluency, complex ideation subtest of BDAE |
Aphasia severity | Moderate-severe; TT mean 25.5 ± 11.3; unclear how to reconcile moderate-severe severity with mostly anomic aphasia |
Aphasia type | Mostly anomic with some non-fluent |
First stroke only? | Not stated |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | Range 2.8-248.9 cc |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | No (Phillips 3 Tesla; model not stated) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | Mixed |
Total images acquired | 435 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | No (no description of HRF model, which is important given sparse sampling design) |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | No (lesion impact not addressed) |
Imaging notes | sparse sampling |
Language condition | Verb generation (covert, block) |
Control condition | Finger tapping (block) |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Yes |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | Strongly lateralized frontal and temporal activation |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Verb generation (overt, event-related) |
Control condition | Noun repetition (event-related) |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Appear mismatched |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | Somewhat L-lateralized frontal, temporal and parietal activations, but also extensive midline activation |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Verb generation (overt, event-related) |
Control condition | Verb generation (covert, event-related) |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | N/A |
Control activation notes | Bilateral speech motor activations, but also extensive midline activation |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Verb generation (covert, block) vs finger tapping (block) |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporal LI |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ LI (temporal) |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Verb generation (overt, event-related) vs noun repetition (event-related) |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Patients less accurate and produced less responses on both conditions, but the difference between groups was greater for verb generation |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporal LI |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ LI (frontal) |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Verb generation (overt, event-related) vs verb generation (covert, event-related) |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Overt performance differed, so covert performance probably did too |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporal LI |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | Lack of lateralization in controls makes this analysis difficult to interpret |
First level contrast | Verb generation (overt, event-related) vs noun repetition (event-related) |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Overt verb generation accuracy |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L MTG; (2) L SFG/CG; (3) left MFG |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions activated by the contrast of overt verb generation vs noun repetition in patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Verb generation (overt, event-related) vs verb generation (covert, event-related) |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | Overt verb generation accuracy |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) R insula/IFG; (2) R STG |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Prominent R hemisphere activations for the contrast of overt and covert verb generation in patients |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
Language | US English |
Inclusion criteria | Broca's aphasia |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 10 (plus 3 excluded: 1 due to a metal implant; 2 for severely non-fluent speech) |
Number of control participants | 20 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 56.9 ± 9.2 years, range 45-75 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (males: 9; females: 4; control sex not matched) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 12; left: 1) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 63.8 ± 64.3 months, range 10-261 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | WAB, BNT, AoS from ABA |
Aphasia severity | AQ mean 48.5 ± 20.6, range 20.9-73.5 |
Aphasia type | Broca's |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | Demographic data includes excluded patients |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | No (Siemens 3 Tesla; model not stated) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No* (moderate limitation) (it appears that each of the three conditions was presented in a separate run) |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | 180? |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | No (not described clearly) |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | sparse sampling |
Language condition | Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) |
Control condition | Listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Behavioral data outside the scanner suggest not matched, but in-scanner behavioral data not reported |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | No |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
Control activation notes | Control and patient data are combined; this contrast activates bilateral anterior insula and posterior MTG, slightly more extensive on the L |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | Rest condition implied but not explicitly described |
Language condition | Listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | Rest condition implied but not explicitly described |
Language condition | Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouth |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | Rest condition implied but not explicitly described |
First level contrast | Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Unclear or not stated |
Software | FSL (FEAT 5.98) |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Thresholding not stated |
Findings | ↑ L angular gyrus ↓ L anterior temporal |
Findings notes | Based on coordinates in Table 2 |
First level contrast | Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Unclear or not stated |
Software | FSL (FEAT 5.98) |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Thresholding not stated |
Findings | ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L anterior cingulate ↑ R precuneus ↑ R occipital ↑ R hippocampus/MTL ↓ L supramarginal gyrus |
Findings notes | Some labels changed based on coordinates |
First level contrast | Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouth vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Unclear or not stated |
Software | FSL (FEAT 5.98) |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Thresholding not stated |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior insula/IFG pars orbitalis; (2) R anterior insula/IFG pars orbitalis; (3) Broca's area; (4) L MTG; (5) L BA 37; (6) R BA 37 |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions activated in both groups considered together |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | There were no interactions of group by condition; two regions showed main effects of group but this is not pertinent to the contrast |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
Language | US English |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 29 (plus 1 excluded: contraindications to MRI) |
Number of control participants | 14 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (26 of 30 patients were included in Fridriksson (2010)) |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 59.2 years, range 33-81 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (males: 14; females: 16; not stated for controls) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 51.1 months, range 6-350 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
Language evaluation | WAB |
Aphasia severity | AQ mean 57.9 ± 25.8, range 17.2-95.2 |
Aphasia type | 13 Broca's, 10 anomic, 3 conduction, 2 Wernicke's, 1 global, 1 transcortical motor |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Range 7.7-420.5 cc |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | Demographic data includes excluded patient |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment/~4 weeks later; note that there were two separate sessions per time point, as well as another two sessions midway through treatment that are not analyzed in this paper |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Anomia treatment using a cueing hierarchy, 3 hours/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks, with a 1-week gap between the two weeks |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (timing of stimuli within the silent periods is unclear) |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | 120 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | sparse sampling; 26 patients were also scanned with arterial spin labelling |
Language condition | Picture naming |
Control condition | Viewing abstract pictures |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | No |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
Control activation notes | Control data in Fridriksson et al. (2007); motor activations are prominent; there is some L frontal activation but little temporal activation in either hemisphere |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | Δ picture naming accuracy |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Other |
How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | Other |
Findings notes | Change in perilesional non-language regions positively correlated with improvement in accuracy |
First level contrast | Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | Δ (decrease in) semantic errors |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Other |
How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | Other |
Findings notes | Change in undamaged non-perilesional language regions negatively correlated with decrease in semantic errors |
First level contrast | Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | Δ (decrease in) phonological paraphasias |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Other |
How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | Other |
Findings notes | Change in perilesional language regions, and change in undamaged non-perilesional language regions, negatively correlated with decrease in phonological paraphasias |
First level contrast | Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
Covariate | Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) picture naming accuracy |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Other |
How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
Covariate | Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1, decrease in) semantic errors |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Other |
How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | Other |
Findings notes | Change in perilesional language regions correlated with decrease in phonological paraphasias |
First level contrast | Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
Covariate | Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1, decrease in) phonological paraphasias |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Other |
How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
Language | Canadian French |
Inclusion criteria | Moderate-severe aphasia; anomia |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 9 |
Number of control participants | 0 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 62 ± 6.0 years, range 50-67 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 5; females: 4) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 9; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 110.2 ± 92.5 months, range 50-300 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
Language evaluation | Montreal-Toulouse Aphasia Battery, picture naming |
Aphasia severity | Moderate-severe |
Aphasia type | 7 Broca's, 1 Broca's + AoS, 1 Wernicke's + AoS |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Range 14.6-295.8 cc |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, 3-6 weeks later (after 80% performance on trained items, or 6 weeks) |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Semantic feature analysis, 1 hour/day, 3 days/week, 3-6 weeks |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (total images acquired not stated) |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | not stated |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | No (lesion impact not addressed) |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Picture naming (T1: known items; T2: trained items; correct trials) |
Control condition | Viewing scrambled images and saying "baba" |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Yes, correct trials only |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | Different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained |
Language condition | Picture naming (known items, correct trials) |
Control condition | Viewing scrambled images and saying "baba" |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Yes, correct trials only |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | Different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained |
Language condition | Picture naming (trained items, correct trials) |
Control condition | Viewing scrambled images and saying "baba" |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Yes, correct trials only |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | Different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained |
First level contrast | Picture naming (T1: known items; T2: trained items; correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba" |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, correct trials only |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Software | SPM5 |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 1780; different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained |
Findings | ↑ L supramarginal gyrus ↓ L dorsal precentral ↓ L posterior MTG |
Findings notes | Labels based on figures rather than text |
First level contrast | Picture naming (known items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba" |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
Covariate | Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) naming of trained items |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, correct trials only |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
Software | SPM5 |
Voxelwise p | .005 |
Cluster extent | 10 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | Different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained |
Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L somato-motor ↑ L anterior cingulate ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R somato-motor ↑ R thalamus |
Findings notes | Labels based on figures and text |
First level contrast | Picture naming (trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba" |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 |
Covariate | Previous Δ (T2 vs T1) naming of trained items |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (T2 activation not an appropriate measure of treatment-induced recovery because it reflects T2 performance) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, correct trials only |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
Software | SPM5 |
Voxelwise p | .005 |
Cluster extent | 10 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | Different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained |
Findings | ↑ L somato-motor |
Findings notes | Label based on figure |
Language | UK English |
Inclusion criteria | Comprehension deficit |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 20 (plus 1 excluded: excessive head motion) |
Number of control participants | 26 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (patients recruited from database so may have participated in prior studies from this group, but not stated explicitly) |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 35.8-90.3 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (males: 16; females: 4; control sex not stated) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 3.5 years, range 0.6-8.6 years) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity only |
Language evaluation | CAT |
Aphasia severity | 11 patients (plus one excluded) had moderate comprehension impairments, 9 had severe comprehension impairments; this distribution was bimodal |
Aphasia type | Not stated |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Range 24.2-403.6 cc |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | Demographic data includes excluded patient |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Sonata 1.5 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | Block |
Total images acquired | 488 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (mostly whole brain but convexity or cerebellum excluded in some participants) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Listening to word pairs or reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | No |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
Control activation notes | Control data in Leff et al. (2008); auditory contrast, not intended to be language contrast |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Listening to word pairs, speaker gender judgment |
Control condition | Listening to reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Behavioral data not separated by condition |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | Control data in Leff et al. (2008); L-lateralized activation of posterior STS |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to word pairs or reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Moderate aphasia (n = 11) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | SPM8 |
Voxelwise p | .001 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ L Heschl's gyrus |
Findings notes | Structurally, HG was not significantly damaged in this group |
First level contrast | Listening to word pairs or reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Severe aphasia (n = 9) vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Mixed** (major limitation) |
Software | SPM8 |
Voxelwise p | MGB: SVC; elsewhere: .001 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ L posterior STG ↓ L Heschl's gyrus ↓ L thalamus |
Findings notes | Specifically: PT, HG and MGB; structurally, the PT and HG were significantly damaged, but not the MGB |
First level contrast | Listening to word pairs or reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Severe (n = 9) vs moderate (n = 11) aphasia |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | SPM8 |
Voxelwise p | .001 |
Cluster extent | None |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ L posterior STG |
Findings notes | Specifically, PT; structurally, severe patients had more damage in HG and PT |
Language | UK English |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 21 |
Number of control participants | 21 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (unclear how many, if any, patients were included in previous studies from this group; design is identical to Tyler et al. (2010)) |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 57.4 ± 12.5 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 15; females: 6) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 21; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 6.5 ± 7.5 years, > 1.4 years) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Not at all |
Language evaluation | Sentence-picture matching |
Aphasia severity | Not stated |
Aphasia type | Not stated |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | 3 of the 21 patients were not stroke, but were post resective surgery |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No* (moderate limitation) (there was only one block per condition per run, so condition could be confounded with low frequency drift; also, the length of the sentences is not stated so it is unclear how well the HRF peak aligns with the sparse acquisitions) |
Design type | Block |
Total images acquired | 69 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | sparse sampling |
Language condition | Listening to normal sentences and detecting a target word |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | No |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
Control activation notes | Bilateral superior temporal, sensorimotor and visual |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Listening to normal sentences and detecting a target word vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
Group(s) | Aphasia vs control |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Software | SPM5 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ L Heschl's gyrus ↓ L mid temporal |
Findings notes | At a more stringent threshold of p < .001, with correction for multiple comparisons based on GRFT and cluster extent, only L HG showed reduced activity in patients |
First level contrast | Listening to normal sentences and detecting a target word vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | See statistical details |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Complex |
Statistical details | Joint ICA was performed on structural and functional contrast images for each of the two contrasts using FIT 2.0b. Seven components were derived, of which 2 were further investigated since their loadings correlated with relevant behavioral measures. Functional components were thresholded at p < .001, cluster-corrected for multiple comparisons, minimum cluster extent = 1.27 cc. Component 1 was considered a "semantics component" because it correlated with the semantic behavioral measure and not with either of the two syntactic measures. This component did not have any anatomical aspect to it. Component 2 was considered a "syntax component" because it correlated with both syntactic behavioral measures and not with the semantic measure. This conceptualization seems somewhat speculative, given that WPE NP and WPE AP are rather indirect measures of syntactic and semantic processing. Component 2 involved damage to left frontal and insular cortex, and underlying dorsal white matter. |
Findings | Other |
Findings notes | Contrast 1 loaded primarily on the R STG for component 1 (the "semantics component") and on the L ITG for component 2 (the "syntax component"). |
First level contrast | Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia |
Covariate | See statistical details |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Complex |
Statistical details | Joint ICA was performed on structural and functional contrast images for each of the two contrasts using FIT 2.0b. Seven components were derived, of which 2 were further investigated since their loadings correlated with relevant behavioral measures. Functional components were thresholded at p < .001, cluster-corrected for multiple comparisons, minimum cluster extent = 1.27 cc. Component 1 was considered a "semantics component" because it correlated with the semantic behavioral measure and not with either of the two syntactic measures. This component did not have any anatomical aspect to it. Component 2 was considered a "syntax component" because it correlated with both syntactic behavioral measures and not with the semantic measure. This conceptualization seems somewhat speculative, given that WPE NP and WPE AP are rather indirect measures of syntactic and semantic processing. Component 2 involved damage to left frontal and insular cortex, and underlying dorsal white matter. |
Findings | Other |
Findings notes | Contrast 2 loaded primarily on the R posterior STG for component 1 (the "semantics component") and on the L posterior STG and L IFG for component 2 (the "syntax component"). |
Language | US English |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 27 |
Number of control participants | 0 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (recovered: mean 50 ± 13 years; non-recovered: mean 51 ± 13 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 15; females: 12) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 27; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (recovered: mean 2.1 ± 2.1 years; non-recovered: mean 4.9 ± 3.1 years) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity only |
Language evaluation | TT, BNT, semantic fluency, phonemic fluency, PPVT, complex ideation subtest of BDAE |
Aphasia severity | Recovered: TT mean 43 ± 1, ≥ 41; non-recovered: TT mean 23 ± 12, < 41 |
Aphasia type | Not stated |
First stroke only? | Not stated |
Stroke type | Not stated |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Recovered: median 9.2 cc, range 2.2-26.5 cc; non-recovered: median 74 cc, range 5.1-206.0 cc |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
Is the scanner described? | No (Phillips 3 Tesla; model not stated) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | Block |
Total images acquired | 330 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Semantic decision |
Control condition | Tone decision |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Appear mismatched |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Accuracy appears similar in the non-recovered group, but not in the recovered group |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Yes |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
Control activation notes | Control data in Kim et al. (2011) and Szaflarski et al. (2008); L frontal and temporal, plus other semantic regions |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia not recovered (n = 18) vs recovered (n = 9) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Appear mismatched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Interaction of group by condition not reported; non-recovered patients were significantly less accurate only on the semantic decision condition, but they actually showed a smaller difference between conditions than the recovered patients |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on 3dClustSim |
Software | AFNI |
Voxelwise p | .05 |
Cluster extent | 4.16 cc |
Statistical details | Cluster-defining threshold (CDT) p < 0.05 too lenient |
Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L superior parietal ↑ L cerebellum ↑ R cerebellum ↓ R posterior STG |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered) |
Covariate | BNT |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Familywise error (FWE) |
Statistical details | Circular because defined based on recovered status |
Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered) |
Covariate | Semantic fluency |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Familywise error (FWE) |
Statistical details | Circular because defined based on recovered status |
Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered) |
Covariate | Single word comprehension (PPVT) |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Familywise error (FWE) |
Statistical details | Circular because defined based on recovered status |
Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered) |
Covariate | BDAE complex ideation subtest |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Familywise error (FWE) |
Statistical details | Circular because defined based on recovered status |
Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered) |
Covariate | Phonemic fluency |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Familywise error (FWE) |
Statistical details | Circular because defined based on recovered status |
Findings | ↓ R posterior STG |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered) |
Covariate | Semantic decision accuracy |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Functional |
How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Familywise error (FWE) |
Statistical details | Circular because defined based on recovered status |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
Language | German |
Inclusion criteria | — |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 24 (plus 6 excluded: 4 did not tolerate MRI or PET scans; 2 TMS device was defective) |
Number of control participants | 0 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (rTMS group: mean 69.8 ± 8.0 years; sham group: mean 71.2 ± 7.8 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 24; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (rTMS group: mean 37.5 ± 18.5 days; sham group: mean 50.6 ± 22.6 days) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
Language evaluation | AAT |
Aphasia severity | T1: rTMS group: AAT sum of scores mean 251.5 ± 32.4; sham group: mean 251.1 ± 39.5; T2 not stated |
Aphasia type | T1: rTMS group: 7 Wernicke's, 3 amnestic, 2 global, 1 Broca's; sham group: 5 Wernicke's, 3 Broca's, 2 global, 1 amnestic; T2: not stated |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Ischemic only |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
Lesion extent | RTMS group: 233 ± 197 cc; sham group: 244 ± 243 cc; lesion extent in images appears much smaller than the stated volumes |
Lesion location | L MCA |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | PET (rCBF) |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—mixed |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/subacute (rTMS group: mean 37.5 ± 18.5 days post onset; sham group: mean 50.6 ± 22.6 days post onset); T2 post-treatment, ~2.5 weeks later |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | RTMS group: inhibitory rTMS over the R IFG pars triangularis + SLT for 45 minutes/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks; control group: sham TMS + SLT |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
Design type | PET |
Total images acquired | 8 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | No (lesion impact not addressed) |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Verb generation |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | Cites Weiduschat et al. (2011) which in turn cites Herholz et al. (1996) which provides some minimal control data |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | (Aphasia with rTMS (n = 13) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with sham (n = 11) T2 vs T1) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
Software | SPM8 |
Voxelwise p | — |
Cluster extent | — |
Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 2244 |
Findings | ↑ L IFG ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ R IFG ↓ R posterior STG/STS/MTG |
Findings notes | Approximate interpretation of qualitative patterns shown in Figure 3; T1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group |
First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | (Aphasia with rTMS (n = 13) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with sham (n = 11) T2 vs T1) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | Language network LI |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | Actual LIs are not reported, only change in LI |
Findings | ↑ LI (language network) |
Findings notes | T1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group |
First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | Δ AAT total score |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
What are the ROI(s)? | Language network LI |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
Statistical details | Model did not include treatment group (rTMS vs sham) |
Findings | ↑ LI (language network) |
Findings notes | Patients who improved more showed a greater leftward shift of activation; T1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group |
Language | German |
Inclusion criteria | Anomia; no severe AoS or dysarthria |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 14 (plus 9 excluded: 4 for ceiling performance; 5 for technical problems) |
Number of control participants | 0 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (median 48 years, range 35-74 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 10; females: 4) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 14; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (median 41 months, range 11-72 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Type only |
Language evaluation | AAT |
Aphasia severity | Not stated |
Aphasia type | 8 Broca's, 3 Wernicke's, 1 fluent non-classifiable, 1 global, 1 transcortical sensory |
First stroke only? | Yes |
Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L MCA; 2 also had ACA |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~6 weeks later (labeled T2 and T3 in paper) |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Lexical therapy, alternating between weeks with phonological and semantic treatment, 4 weeks; 60 out of the 132 items were trained |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Philips Achieva 3 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No* (moderate limitation) (trials too close together (~8 s) and insufficient jitter (1-3 s) for event-related design) |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | 560 |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | No (lesion impact not addressed) |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Picture naming (all conditions) |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | But see control data reported in a subsequent paper (Abel et al., 2015) |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Picture naming (trained items) |
Control condition | Picture naming (untrained items) |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Trained items improved more than untrained items |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | — |
Language condition | Picture naming (semantic trained items) |
Control condition | Picture naming (phonological trained items) |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Yes, matched |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
Covariate | Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) picture naming |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model) |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta |
Software | SPM8 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | 11 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ R basal ganglia |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | Δ picture naming accuracy |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Accuracy is covariate |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta |
Software | SPM8 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | 11 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L somato-motor ↑ L inferior parietal lobule ↑ L supramarginal gyrus ↑ L posterior STS ↑ L posterior MTG ↑ L occipital |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (trained items) vs picture naming (untrained items) |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Trained items improved more than untrained items |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta |
Software | SPM8 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | 11 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L precuneus ↑ L posterior STG ↑ L Heschl's gyrus ↑ L mid temporal ↑ L posterior cingulate ↑ L thalamus ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R somato-motor ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↑ R posterior cingulate ↑ R thalamus ↑ R basal ganglia |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (semantic trained items) vs picture naming (phonological trained items) |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | No differential effects for semantic vs phonological trained items |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta |
Software | SPM8 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | 11 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ R superior parietal ↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ L somato-motor ↓ L occipital ↓ L anterior cingulate ↓ L posterior cingulate ↓ R precuneus ↓ R occipital ↓ R anterior cingulate ↓ R posterior cingulate ↓ R hippocampus/MTL |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest |
Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with semantic impairment T1 (n = 8) vs with phonological impairment T1 (n = 6) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta |
Software | SPM8 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | 11 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ R IFG pars triangularis ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia |
Group(s) | (Aphasia with semantic impairment (n = 8) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with phonological impairment (n = 6) T2 vs T1) |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | Phonological patients showed more improvement on trained items |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta |
Software | SPM8 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | 11 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L somato-motor ↑ L Heschl's gyrus ↑ L anterior temporal ↑ L occipital ↑ L thalamus ↑ L basal ganglia ↑ R somato-motor ↓ L IFG pars opercularis |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with semantic impairment (n = 8) T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta |
Software | SPM8 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | 11 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↑ L basal ganglia |
Findings notes | — |
First level contrast | Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with phonological impairment (n = 6) T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | No, different |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
Search volume | Whole brain |
Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta |
Software | SPM8 |
Voxelwise p | .01 |
Cluster extent | 11 voxels (size not stated) |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | None |
Findings notes | — |
Language | US English |
Inclusion criteria | "at least minimal evidence of non-fluent output"; lesion including precentral gyrus or underlying white matter |
Number of individuals with aphasia | 14 |
Number of control participants | 0 |
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (intention group: mean 72.1 ± 10.5 years; control group: mean 63.0 ± 9.2 years) |
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 8; females: 6) |
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 14; left: 0) |
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (intention group: mean 37.4 ± 33.5 months, range 12-87 months; control group: 38.1 ± 37.4 months, range 10-112 months) |
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
Language evaluation | WAB, BNT, PPVT |
Aphasia severity | Intention group: AQ mean 65.5 ± 8.3; control group: AQ mean 71.9 ± 11.9 |
Aphasia type | Intention group: 4 conduction, 2 Broca's, 1 anomic; control group: 4 anomic, 1 Broca's, 1 conduction, 1 transcortical motor |
First stroke only? | No |
Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
Lesion extent | Not stated |
Lesion location | L MCA, extending frontally at least into the precentral gyrus or underlying white matter |
Participants notes | — |
Modality | fMRI |
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment; T3: 3 months after the end of treatment |
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Word finding therapy for both groups, but the intention group had to produce complex left hand movements, while the control group did not; note that groups were not directly compared in any imaging analyses |
Is the scanner described? | Yes (Philips Achieva 3 Tesla) |
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (total images acquired not stated) |
Design type | Event-related |
Total images acquired | not stated |
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | No (not described) |
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | No (not described clearly) |
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | No (lesion impact not addressed) |
Imaging notes | — |
Language condition | Word generation |
Control condition | Rest |
Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
Control activation notes | — |
Contrast notes | Contrast not described explicitly but there is only one possible contrast |
First level contrast | Word generation vs rest |
Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
Group(s) | Aphasia with intention treatment (n = 7) T2 vs T1 |
Covariate | — |
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
Behavioral data notes | — |
Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
What are the ROI(s)? | (1) lateral frontal LI; (2) medial frontal LI; (3) posterior perisylvian LI |
How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
Statistical details | — |
Findings | ↓ LI (frontal) |
Findings notes | Laterality shift for lateral frontal LI, not medial frontal LI |