Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Supplementary Table S16: Complete coding of all included studies

Weiller et al. (1995)

Reference

AuthorsWeiller C, Isensee C, Rijntjes M, Huber W, Müller S, Bier D, Dutschka K, Woods RP, Noth J, Diener HC
TitleRecovery from Wernicke's aphasia: a positron emission tomographic study
ReferenceAnn Neurol 1995; 37: 723-732
PMID7778845
DOI10.1002/ana.410370605

Participants

LanguageGerman
Inclusion criteriaLesion 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 aphasia6
Number of control participants6
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 evaluationAAT
Aphasia severityRecovered; not aphasic per formal testing
Aphasia typeRecovered, but all had moderate-severe Wernicke's aphasia in the subacute period
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationPosterior L MCA infarct, lesion to the L posterior STG usually extending to MTG and AG
Participants notes6 patients were selected from a database of 600 carefully documented cases

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired6
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
verb generationMultiple words (covert)2YesYes
pseudoword repetitionMultiple words (covert)2YesYes
restNone2N/AN/A
Conditions notesAuditory presentation; pre-scan behavioral data reported

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: verb generation vs rest

Language conditionVerb generation
Control conditionRest
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 notesL posterior temporal, IFG and ventral precentral gyrus, much smaller activations in the R hemisphere
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: pseudoword repetition vs rest

Language conditionPseudoword repetition
Control conditionRest
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 notesL posterior temporal only; similar but less extensive activation in the R hemisphere
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastVerb generation vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 notesIn 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumePerisylvian
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
SoftwareSPM
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 729 (the word "significant" is used)
Findings↑ R IFG
↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
Findings notesBased more on Figure 2 than the text

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastPseudoword repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 notesAll participants are reported to have had no difficulties in performing the repetition task
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumePerisylvian
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
SoftwareSPM
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsQualitative 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 notesBased more on Figure 2 than the text

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Belin et al. (1996)

Reference

AuthorsBelin P, Van Eeckhout P, Zilbovicius M, Remy P, François C, Guillaume S, Chain F, Rancurel G, Samson Y
TitleRecovery from nonfluent aphasia after melodic intonation therapy: a PET study
ReferenceNeurology 1996; 47: 1504-1511
PMID8960735
DOI10.1212/wnl.47.6.1504

Participants

LanguageFrench
Inclusion criteriaMCA; persistent severe non-fluent aphasia followed by marked improvement with MIT
Number of individuals with aphasia7
Number of control participants0
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 evaluationBDAE
Aphasia severityPersistent severe non-fluent aphasia followed by marked improvement with MIT
Aphasia type5 global, 2 Broca's
First stroke only?Not stated
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentNot stated, but note that hypoperfusion greatly exceeded the infarct in all but 1 patient
Lesion locationL MCA; 2 also had ACA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired4
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
word repetition with MIT-like intonationWord (overt)1YesUnknown
word repetitionWord (overt)1YesUnknown
listening to wordsNone1N/AN/A
restNone1N/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: word repetition with MIT-like intonation vs word repetition

Language conditionWord repetition with MIT-like intonation
Control conditionWord 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 notesMore 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

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastWord repetition with MIT-like intonation vs word repetition
Analysis classCross-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 notesMore words were correctly repeated with MIT (16.3 ± 8) than without (12.4 ± 8; p < 0.03)
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsThree 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

Notes

Excluded analysesTwo other contrasts are also reported, but do not fall within the scope of this review

 

Ohyama et al. (1996)

Reference

AuthorsOhyama M, Senda M, Kitamura S, Ishii K, Mishina M, Terashi A
TitleRole of the nondominant hemisphere and undamaged area during word repetition in poststroke aphasics: a PET activation study
ReferenceStroke 1996; 27: 897-903
PMID8623110
DOI10.1161/01.str.27.5.897

Participants

LanguageJapanese
Inclusion criteriaAble to repeat single words
Number of individuals with aphasia16
Number of control participants6
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 evaluationWAB
Aphasia severityAQ mean 74.3 ± 12.2, range 53.8-92.4
Aphasia type6 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 typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Extent and location
Lesion extentMean 33.9 ± 26.3 cc, range 8.1-113.2 cc
Lesion locationL perisylvian
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired6
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
word repetitionWord (overt)2YesYes
countingMultiple words (overt)2YesYes
restNone2N/AN/A
Conditions notesPatients were able to repeat words well, with phonemic errors on no more than 4 out of 48 words; counting condition not analyzed in this paper

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: word repetition vs rest

Language conditionWord repetition
Control conditionRest
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 notesBilateral auditory and motor activations are prominent, only slightly L-lateralized
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No (see specific limitation(s) below)

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastWord repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 notesSome of the patients made a few errors, so as a group they may have been less accurate than controls
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsThe 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

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastWord repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↓ R IFG
Findings notes

ROI analysis 3

First level contrastWord repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateSpontaneous 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsNo correction for multiple comparisons across WAB subscores
Findings↑ L IFG
Findings notes

ROI analysis 4

First level contrastWord repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateComprehension (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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsThis non-significant finding is implied but not stated explicitly
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 5

First level contrastWord repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateRepetition (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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsThis non-significant finding is implied but not stated explicitly
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 6

First level contrastWord repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateNaming (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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsThis non-significant finding is implied but not stated explicitly
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analysesSeparate analyses for fluent and non-fluent patients revealed essentially similar results

 

Heiss et al. (1997)

Reference

AuthorsHeiss WD, Kessler J, Karbe H, Fink GR, Pawlik G
TitleSpeech-induced cerebral metabolic activation reflects recovery from aphasia
ReferenceJ Neurol Sci 1997; 145: 213-217
PMID9094051
DOI10.1016/s0022-510x(96)00252-3

Participants

LanguageGerman
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia6
Number of control participants6
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 evaluationVerbal repetition, confrontation naming, oral and written comprehension, reading abilities, TT, phonemic fluency, clinical impression, family interview
Aphasia severityT1: TT range 37-48; T2: TT range 3-39 (1 missing)
Aphasia typeT1: 5 global, 1 Wernicke's; T2: not stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentRange 27.2-133.2 cc
Lesion locationL MCA; 5 patients had superior temporal damage and 1 had subcortical damage underlying posterior superior temporal cortex
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired2
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?No (no information about repetition rate, or whether repetition was overt or covert)
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
word repetitionWord (overt)1UnknownUnknown
restNone1N/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: word repetition vs rest

Language conditionWord repetition
Control conditionRest
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 notesThe 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

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastWord repetition vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Softwarenot stated
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsQualitative generalization across individuals on pp. 214-6
Findings↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
Findings notesThe 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

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastWord repetition vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative generalization across individuals on pp. 214, 216
Findings↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↑ L Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Karbe et al. (1998)

Reference

AuthorsKarbe H, Thiel A, Weber-Luxenburger G, Herholz K, Kessler J, Heiss WD
TitleBrain plasticity in poststroke aphasia: what is the contribution of the right hemisphere?
ReferenceBrain Lang 1998; 64: 215-230
PMID9710490
DOI10.1006/brln.1998.1961

Participants

LanguageGerman
Inclusion criteriaMCA; able to repeat single words
Number of individuals with aphasia12
Number of control participants10
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 evaluationTT
Aphasia severityT1: 9 severe; 2 mild; 1 not stated; TT range 3-47 errors; T2: not stated
Aphasia typeT1: 8 global, 3 anomic, 1 Wernicke's; T2: not stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Extent and location
Lesion extentRange 2-133 cc
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notesOnly 7 of the 12 patients took part at T2

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired8
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
word repetitionWord (overt)4 (?)UnknownUnknown
restNone4 (?)N/AN/A
Conditions notesInability to repeat single words was an exclusion criterion, but many patients had severe aphasia so it is unclear how they would have performed

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: word repetition vs rest

Language conditionWord repetition
Control conditionRest
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 notesROIs only; negligible evidence of lateralization
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastWord repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative 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

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastWord repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) T1 (n = 7)
CovariateTT 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 3

First level contrastWord repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) T2 (n = 7)
CovariateTT 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo 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 notesMore activation in patients with more severe aphasia per TT

ROI analysis 4

First level contrastWord repetition vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) (n = 7) T2 vs T1
CovariateSubsequent 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical details
Findings↑ L posterior STG
↑ L Heschl's gyrus
Findings notesIncrease in activation for repetition was correlated with better aphasia outcome per TT

ROI analysis 5

First level contrastWord repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) T2 (n = 7)
CovariatePrevious 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↓ R IFG
↓ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notesPatients with more increase in L STG/HG activation showed less activation of R hemisphere regions at T2

Notes

Excluded analysesThe "Initial study" columns of table 3, because they are not described in the text and it is not clear exactly what is being correlated with what

 

Cao et al. (1999)

Reference

AuthorsCao Y, Vikingstad EM, George KP, Johnson AF, Welch KM
TitleCortical language activation in stroke patients recovering from aphasia with functional MRI
ReferenceStroke 1999; 30: 2331-2340
PMID10548667
DOI10.1161/01.str.30.11.2331

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteriaAphasia with significant recovery over months to years (ADPASS > 70th percentile)
Number of individuals with aphasia6 (plus 2 excluded: 1 unable to reliably describe performance post-scan; 1 due to head motion)
Number of control participants37
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 evaluationADP
Aphasia severityADPASS percentile range 73-99
Aphasia type3 anomic, 1 conduction, 1 recovered, 1 transcortical sensory
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentExtents are reported in three dimensions
Lesion location4 L MCA, 2 L ICA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeBlock
Total images acquired40
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
picture namingWord (covert)4YesYes
viewing nonsense drawingsNone4N/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: picture naming vs viewing nonsense drawings

Language conditionPicture naming
Control conditionViewing 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 notesInsufficient data to assess the control activation pattern
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming vs viewing nonsense drawings
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeMixed
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 comparisonsNo 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

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastPicture naming vs viewing nonsense drawings
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariatePicture 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeMixed
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↑ LI (frontal)
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analyses(1) verb generation study with n = 4 patients; (2) individual patient results; (3) whole brain and whole hemisphere activation measures

 

Heiss et al. (1999)

Reference

AuthorsHeiss WD, Kessler J, Thiel A, Ghaemi M, Karbe H
TitleDifferential capacity of left and right hemispheric areas for compensation of poststroke aphasia
ReferenceAnn Neurol 1999; 45: 430-438
PMID10211466
DOI10.1002/1531-8249(199904)45:4<430::aid-ana3>3.0.co;2-p

Participants

LanguageGerman
Inclusion criteriaAAT repetition >= 50
Number of individuals with aphasia23
Number of control participants11
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 evaluationAAT, phonemic fluency
Aphasia severityT1: 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 typeT1: 6 Wernicke's, 5 Broca's, 5 residual aphasia, 4 anomic, 2 transcortical sensory, 1 conduction; T2: not stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Extent and location
Lesion extentRange 4.3-154.3 cc (probably; units not stated)
Lesion locationL MCA; 9 subcortical, 7 frontal, 7 temporal
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired8
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
noun repetitionWord (overt)4UnknownUnknown
restNone4N/AN/A
Conditions notesInclusion criterion would suggest all patients could do the task, but this is not stated

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: noun repetition vs rest

Language conditionNoun repetition
Control conditionRest
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 notesL frontal and bilateral temporal
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings↑ L mid temporal
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings↑ L posterior STG
↑ L mid temporal
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes

ROI analysis 3

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative 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

ROI analysis 4

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative 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

ROI analysis 5

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative 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

ROI analysis 6

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative 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

ROI analysis 7

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative 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

ROI analysis 8

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative 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

ROI analysis 9

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative 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

ROI analysis 10

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative 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

ROI analysis 11

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes

ROI analysis 12

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings↓ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes

ROI analysis 13

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative 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

ROI analysis 14

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative 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

ROI analysis 15

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on pp. 434-5
Findings↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes

ROI analysis 16

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 435
Findings↑ L posterior STG
↑ L mid temporal
Findings notes

ROI analysis 17

First level contrastNoun repetition vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical detailsQualitative 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

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Kessler et al. (2000)

Reference

AuthorsKessler J, Thiel A, Karbe H, Heiss WD
TitlePiracetam improves activated blood flow and facilitates rehabilitation of poststroke aphasic patients
ReferenceStroke 2000; 31: 2112-2116
PMID10978039
DOI10.1161/01.str.31.9.2112

Participants

LanguageGerman
Inclusion criteriaMild to moderate aphasia on TT; at least 50 out of 150 on AAT repetition
Number of individuals with aphasia24
Number of control participants0
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 evaluationAAT
Aphasia severityT1: 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 typeNot stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Location only
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion location10 L frontal, 6 L subcortical, 8 L temporal
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired8
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
word repetitionWord (overt)4YesYes
restNone4N/AN/A
Conditions notesInclusion criterion was applied to ensure that the task could be performed

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: word repetition vs rest

Language conditionWord repetition
Control conditionRest
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 notesNo control data are reported or cited, however the same task was used in several previous studies by this group
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastWord repetition vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ L posterior STG
↑ L Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastWord repetition vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Rosen et al. (2000)

Reference

AuthorsRosen HJ, Petersen SE, Linenweber MR, Snyder AZ, White DA, Chapman L, Dromerick AW, Fiez JA, Corbetta M
TitleNeural correlates of recovery from aphasia after damage to left inferior frontal cortex
ReferenceNeurology 2000; 55: 1883-1894
PMID11134389
DOI10.1212/wnl.55.12.1883

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteriaL IFG, possibly extending to neighboring regions
Number of individuals with aphasia6
Number of control participants14
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 evaluationWAB (except BDAE in 1 patient), reading pseudowords, word stem completion, verb generation, reading single words
Aphasia severityAQ range 74-97 (missing in 1 patient)
Aphasia type3 anomic, 1 Broca's, 1 not stated, 1 recovered
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentRange 10.7-117.5 cc
Lesion locationL IFG, extending to neighboring areas in most cases
Participants notesOf the 14 controls, 6 were studied with PET and 8 with fMRI

Imaging

ModalityPET 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 typeMixed
Total images acquiredPET: 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 notes1 patient scanned on different PET scanner, and not scanned with fMRI; controls had different fMRI sequence to patients

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
word stem completion (PET)Word (overt)4YesYes
reading pseudowords aloud (PET)Word (overt)4YesNo
rest (PET)None2N/AN/A
word stem completion (fMRI)Word (covert)15-30 (?)YesYes
rest (fMRI)None15-30 (?)N/AN/A
Conditions notesPseudoword reading condition not analyzed in this paper

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: word stem completion (PET) vs rest (PET)

Language conditionWord stem completion (PET)
Control conditionRest (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 notesL IFG, L ITG, L anterior fusiform
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: word stem completion (fMRI) vs rest (fMRI)

Language conditionWord stem completion (fMRI)
Control conditionRest (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 notesL IFG, L intraparietal sulcus
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastWord stem completion (PET) vs rest (PET)
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsUnclear or not stated
Softwarenot stated
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsCorrection 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

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastWord stem completion (fMRI) vs rest (fMRI)
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Softwarenot stated
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 1888
Findings↑ R IFG
↓ L IFG
Findings notes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastWord stem completion (fMRI) vs rest (fMRI)
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsPossibly circular because not clear how ROIs defined
Findings↑ R IFG
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analyses(1) the authors also observe that the two patients with the best language outcomes retained perilesional activation in the L IFG; (2) two non-significant correlational analyses involving only 5 patients, but note that the main fMRI analyses have been included even though n = 5

 

Blasi et al. (2002)

Reference

AuthorsBlasi V, Young AC, Tansy AP, Petersen SE, Snyder AZ, Corbetta M
TitleWord retrieval learning modulates right frontal cortex in patients with left frontal damage
ReferenceNeuron 2002; 36: 159-170
PMID12367514
DOI10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00936-4

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteriaL IFG, possibly extending to neighboring regions
Number of individuals with aphasia8
Number of control participants14
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 evaluationWAB or BDAE
Aphasia severityAQ range 66.5-89.0 in 6 participants, BDAE aphasia severity of 4 in 1 participant, no formal evaluation in 1 participant
Aphasia type3 anomic, 3 transcortical motor, 1 Broca's, 1 not stated; most were Broca's or global acutely
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL IFG and operculum, extending to adjacent cortex and white matter in several cases
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeEvent-related
Total images acquired1024
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
word stem completion (novel items)Word (covert)196YesUnknown
word stem completion (repeated items)Word (covert)196YesUnknown
restNoneimplicit baselineN/AN/A
Conditions notesNovel items were presented in runs 1, 6, 7, and 8; repeated items were presented in runs 2, 3, 4, and 5; of the four repeated runs, only run 5 was analyzed.

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: word stem completion (novel items) vs rest

Language conditionWord stem completion (novel items)
Control conditionRest
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 notesActivation of language areas but also other areas; frontal activation is somewhat lateralized
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: word stem completion (novel items) vs word stem completion (repeated items)

Language conditionWord stem completion (novel items)
Control conditionWord 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 notesNo 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

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No** (major limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastWord stem completion (novel items) vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 notesCovert task but overt data acquired separately; patients less accurate and slower than controls
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsUnclear or not stated
Softwarenot stated
Voxelwise p~.001 (z > 3)
Cluster extent45 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical detailsMonte 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 notesLabels based on coordinates reported

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastWord stem completion (novel items) vs word stem completion (repeated items)
Analysis classCross-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 notesCovert task but overt data acquired separately; no interaction of group by practice for accuracy or RT
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsCircular 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 notesLabels based on coordinates reported

Notes

Excluded analyses(1) the ROI results were replicated in a whole brain SPM analysis, but that analysis is not reported; (2) the authors observe that patients with smaller L frontal lesions, and perilesional activation, performed better on word stem completion overall, but did not differ in rate of learning

 

Leff et al. (2002)

Reference

AuthorsLeff A, Crinion J, Scott S, Turkheimer F, Howard D, Wise R
TitleA physiological change in the homotopic cortex following left posterior temporal lobe infarction
ReferenceAnn Neurol 2002; 51: 553-558
PMID12112100
DOI10.1002/ana.10181

Participants

LanguageUK English
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia15
Number of control participants8
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 evaluationPPT (Dutch), British picture vocabulary scale, Action for Dysphasic Adults lexical decision battery, auditory maximal pairs (an offline phoneme discrimination test)
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia typeNot stated, but all 6 patients with pSTS damage had single word comprehension deficits acutely
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Extent and location
Lesion extentRange 0.5-14% of total brain volume
Lesion location9 L but sparing pSTS, 6 L including pSTS
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired16
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
listening to words at 10 wpmNone2N/AN/A
listening to words at 35 wpmNone2N/AN/A
listening to words at 55 wpmNone2N/AN/A
listening to words at 70 wpmNone2N/AN/A
listening to words at 85 wpmNone2N/AN/A
listening to words at 95 wpmNone2N/AN/A
listening to words at 115 wpmNone2N/AN/A
listening to words at 130 wpmNone2N/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: higher word rates vs lower word rates

Language conditionHigher word rates
Control conditionLower 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 notesControl 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

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastHigher word rates vs lower word rates
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsQualitative 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

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastHigher word rates vs lower word rates
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsQualitative 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

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastHigher word rates vs lower word rates
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsThe 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

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastHigher word rates vs lower word rates
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsThe 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

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Blank et al. (2003)

Reference

AuthorsBlank SC, Bird H, Turkheimer F, Wise RJ
TitleSpeech production after stroke: the role of the right pars opercularis
ReferenceAnn Neurol 2003; 54: 310-320
PMID12953263
DOI10.1002/ana.10656

Participants

LanguageUK English
Inclusion criteriaInitial 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 aphasia14
Number of control participants12
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 evaluationCAT, QPA
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia typePOp+: 4 non-fluent but not agrammatic, 2 agrammatic, 1 recovered; POp-: 4 non-fluent but not agrammatic, 3 recovered
First stroke only?No
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL frontal, occasionally extending into temporal
Participants notes8 of 12 controls included in Blank et al. (2002)

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired15 (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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
propositional speech productionSentence (overt)aphasia: 5; control: 4YesYes
countingMultiple words (overt)aphasia: 5; control: 4YesYes
restNoneaphasia: 5; control: 4N/AN/A
Conditions notesAlertness maintained in rest by asking participants to listen to environmental sounds that were presented before and after data acquisition; speech was recorded and rate was measured, also QPA was done of a separate speech sample outside the scanner

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: propositional speech production vs rest

Language conditionPropositional speech production
Control conditionRest
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 notesMuch bilateral activation due to overt speech but pars opercularis and supratemporal plane L-lateralized
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: propositional speech production vs counting

Language conditionPropositional speech production
Control conditionCounting
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 notesExtrasylvian; somewhat L-lateralized
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastPropositional speech production vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 notesWord rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeVoxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisonsSmall volume correction
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis
Cluster extent
Statistical details
Findings↑ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notesNo voxels survived FWE correction without SVC

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastPropositional speech production vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 notesWord rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeVoxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisonsSmall volume correction
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis
Cluster extent
Statistical details
Findings↑ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastPropositional speech production vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 notesWord rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeVoxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisonsSmall volume correction
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis
Cluster extent
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notesPatients with L IFG POp damage showed numerically more signal in the R IFG POp

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrastPropositional speech production vs counting
Analysis classCross-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 notesWord rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeVoxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisonsSmall volume correction
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis
Cluster extent
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 5

First level contrastPropositional speech production vs counting
Analysis classCross-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 notesWord rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeVoxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisonsSmall volume correction
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis
Cluster extent
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 6

First level contrastPropositional speech production vs counting
Analysis classCross-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 notesWord rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeVoxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisonsSmall volume correction
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis
Cluster extent
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastPropositional speech production vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7)
CovariateSpeech 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastPropositional speech production vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia without IFG POp damage (n = 7)
CovariateSpeech 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 3

First level contrastPropositional speech production vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7)
CovariateFour 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analysesROI analyses may have been carried out for both contrasts, but this is not stated

 

Cardebat et al. (2003)

Reference

AuthorsCardebat D, Démonet JF, De Boissezon X, Marie N, Marié RM, Lambert J, Baron JC, Puel M
TitleBehavioral and neurofunctional changes over time in healthy and aphasic subjects: a PET Language Activation Study
ReferenceStroke 2003; 34: 2900-2906
PMID14615626
DOI10.1161/01.str.0000099965.99393.83

Participants

LanguageFrench
Inclusion criteriaNo severe aphasia; no leukoaraiosis
Number of individuals with aphasia8
Number of control participants6
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 evaluationNot stated
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia typeT1: some prominent symptoms are listed for each patient; T2: not stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeMixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion location4 L subcortical, 2 L prerolandic, 2 L postrolandic
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired6
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
word generationWord (overt)4YesUnknown
restNone2N/AN/A
Conditions notesParticipants were asked to generate words that were semantically related to binaurally presented stimuli; 2 runs involved nouns and 2 involved verbs

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: word generation vs rest

Language conditionWord generation
Control conditionRest
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 notesBilateral fronto-temporal and some other regions per text
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastWord generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise p.05
Cluster extent50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical detailsNature 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 notesBased on Figure 2

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastWord generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateΔ 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extent100 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical detailsNature 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

Notes

Excluded analysesAphasia vs control SPM analyses at each time point, because they are not reported in sufficient detail to determine activated regions

 

Sharp et al. (2004)

Reference

AuthorsSharp DJ, Scott SK, Wise RJ
TitleRetrieving meaning after temporal lobe infarction: the role of the basal language area
ReferenceAnn Neurol 2004; 56: 836-846
PMID15514975
DOI10.1002/ana.20294

Participants

LanguageUK English
Inclusion criteriaLesion in vicinity of L STG; no extensive frontal damage; no inferior temporal damage; able to perform tasks
Number of individuals with aphasia9
Number of control participants18
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 evaluationSubtests from CAT, subtests from PALPA, Action for dysphasic adults, TROG, PPT
Aphasia severityMild
Aphasia typeNot stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationLesion in vicinity of L STG; no extensive frontal damage; no inferior temporal damage
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired16
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
semantic decisionWord (overt)aphasia: 8; control: 4YesYes
syllable count decisionWord (overt)aphasia: 8; control: 4YesYes
semantic decision (noise vocoded) (control only)Word (overt)4 (control)YesYes
syllable count decision (noise vocoded) (control only)Word (overt)4 (control)YesYes
Conditions notesSeems the response was a spoken word, but this is not stated explicitly; assuming all individuals could do the tasks because this was an inclusion criterion and behavioral data supports

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: semantic decision vs syllable count decision

Language conditionSemantic decision
Control conditionSyllable 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 notesThe control data provided also include the noise vocoded conditions; only ventral temporal activations are shown, which are L-lateralized
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastSemantic decision vs syllable count decision
Analysis classCross-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 notesInteraction of group by task not reported for accuracy
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsSmall volume correction
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise pFWE 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

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastSemantic decision vs syllable count decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateSemantic 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsSmall volume correction
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05 with SVC in fusiform gyri, temporal poles, L IFG, L orbitofrontal and L SFG
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsFixed effects; this analysis is not clearly described
Findings↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Findings notesPatients who were more accurate had more activity in R anterior fusiform gyrus

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastSemantic decision vs syllable count decision
Analysis classCross-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 notesInteraction of group by task not reported for accuracy
Type of analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical details
Findings↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Findings notes

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastSemantic decision vs syllable count decision
Analysis classCross-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 notesPatients 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notesThis analysis suggests that the difference between groups in the L fusiform gyrus disappears when the controls perform a semantic task that is similarly challenging

Notes

Excluded analyses(1) combined analysis of patients and controls (Figure 4); (2) correlation with syllable decision making not described in sufficient detail

 

Zahn et al. (2004)

Reference

AuthorsZahn R, Drews E, Specht K, Kemeny S, Reith W, Willmes K, Schwarz M, Huber W
TitleRecovery of semantic word processing in global aphasia: a functional MRI study
ReferenceCogn Brain Res 2004; 18: 322-336
PMID14741318
DOI10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.10.021

Participants

LanguageGerman
Inclusion criteriaGlobal aphasia in the first three months; some improvement of comprehension within 6-12 months
Number of individuals with aphasia7
Number of control participants14
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 evaluationAABT, AAT
Aphasia severityTT percentile range 28-63
Aphasia type3 global, 2 Broca's, 2 unclassifiable; all had been global initially
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeBlock
Total images acquired198
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
phonetic decision (reversed words vs sounds)Button press3YesNo
lexical decision (words vs reversed words)Button press3YesYes
semantic decisionButton press3YesNo
restNone9N/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?No (see specific limitation(s) below)

Contrast 1: semantic decision vs phonetic decision and lexical decision (conjunction)

Language conditionSemantic decision
Control conditionPhonetic 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 notesTasks 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 notesL-lateralized frontal activation, as well as temporal and parietal to a lesser extent
Contrast notesConjunction of baseline conditions not described in sufficient detail

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastSemantic decision vs phonetic decision and lexical decision (conjunction)
Analysis classCross-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 notesRelative performance on language and control tasks unclear
Type of analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeLaterality 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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsConjunction analyses not clearly described; in two patients, a different conjunction was used (lexical decision vs phonetic decision & semantic decision vs phonetic decision)
FindingsNone
Findings notesLI > 0 in 12 out of 14 controls and 5 out of 7 patients; no significant difference

Notes

Excluded analysesIndividual patient analyses

 

Crinion & Price (2005)

Reference

AuthorsCrinion J, Price CJ
TitleRight anterior superior temporal activation predicts auditory sentence comprehension following aphasic stroke
ReferenceBrain 2005; 128: 2858-2871
PMID16234297
DOI10.1093/brain/awh659

Participants

LanguageUK English
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia17
Number of control participants18
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 evaluationCAT
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia typeNot stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeBlock
Total images acquired460
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
listening to narrative speechNone32N/AN/A
listening to reversed speechNone8N/AN/A
Conditions notesA post-scan surprise recognition test asked whether or not 38 phrases had occurred in any story; patients answered 12-33 of these questions correctly; controls answered 24-37 correctly; also note that all patients performed above chance on CAT auditory sentence comprehension (73%+ accuracy)

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech

Language conditionListening to narrative speech
Control conditionListening 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 notesBilateral (L > R) temporal, L IFG and L dorsal precentral
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsVoxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05
Cluster extent5 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↓ L dorsal precentral
↓ R somato-motor
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsVoxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05
Cluster extent5 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↓ L posterior STS
↓ L mid temporal
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsVoxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05
Cluster extent5 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L mid temporal
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia without temporal lobe damage (n = 9)
CovariateSentence 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsVoxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05
Cluster extent5 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical detailsConjunction 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 notesPatients with better sentence comprehension had more activation in the L posterior STS and R mid STS

Voxelwise analysis 5

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 8)
CovariateSentence 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsVoxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05
Cluster extent5 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical detailsConjunction 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 notesPatients with better sentence comprehension had more activation in the R mid STS

Complex analysis 1

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 analysisComplex
Statistical detailsCorrelations 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.
FindingsOther
Findings notesActivity 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

Complex analysis 2

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 analysisComplex
Statistical detailsCorrelations 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.
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Complex analysis 3

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 analysisComplex
Statistical detailsCorrelations 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.
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Complex analysis 4

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 analysisComplex
Statistical detailsCorrelations 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.
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analysesAn analysis involving associations between activations and story recognition memory because it included both controls and patients

 

de Boissezon et al. (2005)

Reference

Authorsde Boissezon X, Démonet JF, Puel M, Marie N, Raboyeau G, Albucher JF, Chollet F, Cardebat D
TitleSubcortical aphasia: a longitudinal PET study
ReferenceStroke 2005; 36: 1467-1473
PMID15933252
DOI10.1161/01.str.0000169947.08972.4f

Participants

LanguageFrench
Inclusion criteriaSubcortical stroke; no severe aphasia
Number of individuals with aphasia7
Number of control participants0
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 evaluationMontreal-Toulouse Aphasia Battery
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia typeT1: 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 typeMixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion location5 L non-thalamic subcortical, 2 L thalamic
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired6
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
word generationWord (overt)4YesYes
restNone2N/AN/A
Conditions notesNouns in two runs, verbs in two runs, combined here because they were combined in analysis

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: word generation vs rest

Language conditionWord generation
Control conditionRest
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

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastWord generation vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T1
CovariateTime 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 notesNo significant correlation between time post onset and accuracy
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent50 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 notesMore activity with longer time post onset; based on coordinates in Table 3a

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastWord generation vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T1
CovariateWord 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent50 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 notesBased on coordinates in Table 3b

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastWord generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extent100 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical detailsDescription 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 notesBased on coordinates in Table 2

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrastWord generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateΔ 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent20 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↑ L mid temporal
↑ R anterior temporal
↑ R cerebellum
Findings notesBased on coordinates in Table 3c

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Connor et al. (2006)

Reference

AuthorsConnor LT, DeShazo Braby T, Snyder AZ, Lewis C, Blasi V, Corbetta M
TitleCerebellar activity switches hemispheres with cerebral recovery in aphasia
ReferenceNeuropsychologia 2006; 44: 171-177
PMID16019040
DOI10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.05.019

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteriaL IFG, possibly extending to neighboring regions
Number of individuals with aphasia8
Number of control participants14
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 evaluationWAB or BDAE
Aphasia severityAQ range 66.5-89.0 in 6 participants, BDAE aphasia severity of 4 in 1 participant, no formal evaluation in 1 participant
Aphasia type3 anomic, 3 transcortical motor, 1 Broca's, 1 not stated; most were Broca's or global acutely
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL IFG and operculum, extending to adjacent cortex and white matter in several cases
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeEvent-related
Total images acquired1024
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
word stem completion (novel items)Word (covert)196YesUnknown
word stem completion (repeated items)Word (covert)196YesUnknown
restNoneimplicit baselineN/AN/A
Conditions notesNovel items were presented in runs 1, 6, 7, and 8; repeated items were presented in runs 2, 3, 4, and 5; of the four repeated runs, only run 5 was analyzed.

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: word stem completion (novel items) vs word stem completion (repeated items)

Language conditionWord stem completion (novel items)
Control conditionWord 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 notesNo whole brain analysis of this contrast, but somewhat lateralized in the sense that L but not R frontal areas showed a learning effect
Contrast notesThe only contrast analyzed in this paper is the "learning" contrast which corresponds to contrast 2 in Blasi et al. (2002)

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastWord stem completion (novel items) vs word stem completion (repeated items)
Analysis classCross-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 notesCovert task but overt data acquired separately; no interaction of group by practice for accuracy or RT
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeCerebellum
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
Softwarenot stated
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsQualitative 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

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastWord stem completion (novel items) vs word stem completion (repeated items)
Analysis classCross-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 notesCovert task but overt data acquired separately; no interaction of group by practice for accuracy or RT
Type of analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsCircular 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

Notes

Excluded analyses(1) analysis of frontal changes is excluded since it appears to be identical to Blasi et al. (2002); (2) the analyses involving mirrored cerebellar regions are excluded since the groups were not compared directly

 

Crinion et al. (2006)

Reference

AuthorsCrinion JT, Warburton EA, Lambon-Ralph MA, Howard D, Wise RJ
TitleListening to narrative speech after aphasic stroke: the role of the left anterior temporal lobe
ReferenceCereb Cortex 2006; 16: 1116-1125
PMID16251507
DOI10.1093/cercor/bhj053

Participants

LanguageUK English
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia24
Number of control participants11
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 evaluationCAT (missing in two participants)
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia typeNot stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion location6 L but no temporal damage, 9 L temporal damage excluding anterior temporal cortex, 9 L temporal damage including anterior temporal cortex
Participants notesResults of control participants previously reported in Crinion et al. (2003)

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired12-16
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 notestwo different scanners used for patients, but not for controls

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
listening to narrative speechNone6-8N/AN/A
listening to reversed speechNone6-8N/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech

Language conditionListening to narrative speech
Control conditionListening 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 notes11 participants; L-lateralized posterior temporal, bilateral anterior temporal, no frontal
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeVoxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisonsVoxelwise FWE correction
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05
Cluster extent
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeVoxels spared in all included patients
Correction for multiple comparisonsVoxelwise FWE correction
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05
Cluster extent
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeVoxels spared in all included patients
Correction for multiple comparisonsVoxelwise FWE correction
SoftwareSPM99
Voxelwise pFWE p < .05
Cluster extent
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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)
CovariateAuditory 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsSame 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 notesMore activity in patients with better auditory sentence comprehension

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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)
CovariateTime 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsTwo other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 3

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsTwo other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses
Findings↓ L anterior temporal
Findings notesPatients with posterior temporal damage had less signal change

ROI analysis 4

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsCircular 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 notesLarge difference 2.7 ± 0.8 (patients) vs 6.3 ± 1.4 (controls) makes finding suggestive even in light of the circularity

ROI analysis 5

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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)
CovariateAuditory 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsTwo other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses
FindingsNone
Findings notesR = 0.39; p > 0.1; seems to be a clear trend so lack of significance may reflect only lack of power

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Saur et al. (2006)

Reference

AuthorsSaur D, Lange R, Baumgaertner A, Schraknepper V, Willmes K, Rijntjes M, Weiller C
TitleDynamics of language reorganization after stroke
ReferenceBrain 2006; 129: 1371-1384
PMID16638796
DOI10.1093/brain/awl090

Participants

LanguageGerman
Inclusion criteriaMCA; age < 70 years; able to distinguish forward vs backward speech outside the scanner; no pronounced small vessel disease
Number of individuals with aphasia14 (plus 4 excluded: 1 health problems; 1 scanner noise; 2 did not tolerate fMRI)
Number of control participants14
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 evaluationAABT, AAT including TT, analysis of spontaneous speech, CETI, Language Recovery Score (LRS) derived from all these measures plus in-scanner task performance
Aphasia severityT1: 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 typeT1: 9 non-fluent, 5 fluent; T2: not stated; T3: 6 recovered, 4 minimal language impairment, 3 anomic, 1 global
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL MCA; 4 frontal (2 extending to temporoparietal); 5 temporoparietal (2 extending to subcortical); 4 striatocapsular (2 extending to cortical); 1 frontoparietal
Participants notes198 patients with aphasia were screened

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeEvent-related
Total images acquired660
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgmentButton press92UnknownNo
listening to reversed speechButton press92YesUnknown
restNoneimplicit baselineN/AN/A
Conditions notesIn the auditory sentence comprehension condition, participants had to press a button to semantically anomalous sentences; in the reversed speech condition, they had to always press the button; the behavioral scores provided are not explained in the paper, but per a personal communication cited by Geranmayeh et al. (2014), 10% of the score reflects discrimination between intelligible and reversed speech, while 90% reflects semantic anomaly judgment; our coding of behavior is based on this limited information

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech

Language conditionListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment
Control conditionListening 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 notesReported 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 notesL temporal and L > R frontal
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extentNone
Statistical details
Findings↑ L insula
↑ R IFG pars orbitalis
↑ R insula
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
Findings notesR IFG/insula activation noted to survive FWE correction at p < .05

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.005
Cluster extentNone
Statistical detailsThreshold was lowered to reveal the R frontal change in activation
Findings↓ R IFG pars orbitalis
↓ R occipital
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extentNone
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

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extentNone
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 notesL STG in table is actually MTG based on coordinates

Voxelwise analysis 5

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.005
Cluster extentNone
Statistical detailsThreshold was lowered to reveal L IFG
Findings↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
↑ L insula
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R IFG
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 6

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extentNone
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 7

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T1
CovariateLanguage 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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extentNone
Statistical details
Findings↑ L IFG
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R IFG pars triangularis
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 8

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2
CovariateLanguage 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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extentNone
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 9

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T3
CovariateLanguage 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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extentNone
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 10

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extentNone
Statistical details
Findings↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R insula
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 11

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extentNone
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 12

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extentNone
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsFamilywise error (FWE)
Statistical details
Findings↑ R insula
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
Findings notesSome other ROIs also significant prior to correction for multiple comparisons; n.b. performance confound

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsFamilywise error (FWE)
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notesSome other ROIs also significant prior to correction for multiple comparisons; n.b. performance confound

ROI analysis 3

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsFamilywise error (FWE)
Statistical details
Findings↑ L posterior MTG
Findings notesSome other ROIs also significant prior to correction for multiple comparisons; n.b. performance confound

ROI analysis 4

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsCircular because ROIs defined in one group
Findings↓ L posterior MTG
↓ R IFG pars triangularis
Findings notesR IFG difference described in text but not table

ROI analysis 5

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsCircular because ROIs defined in one group
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 6

First level contrastListening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 notesAccuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsCircular because ROIs defined in one group
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analysesAdditional analyses using absolute improvements in LRS instead of proportional improvements

 

Meinzer et al. (2008)

Reference

AuthorsMeinzer M, Flaisch T, Breitenstein C, Wienbruch C, Elbert T, Rockstroh B
TitleFunctional re-recruitment of dysfunctional brain areas predicts language recovery in chronic aphasia
ReferenceNeuroImage 2008; 39: 2038-2046
PMID18096407
DOI10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.10.008

Participants

LanguageGerman
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia11
Number of control participants0
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 evaluationAAT, study-specific picture naming test with 150 items
Aphasia severity6 moderate, 4 mild, 1 severe
Aphasia type7 Broca's, 2 Wernicke's, 1 global, 1 unclassified
First stroke only?Not stated
Stroke typeMixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentRange 31.0-236.0 cc
Lesion locationL
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeBlock
Total images acquired160
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
picture naming (trained items)Word (overt)8YesNo
picture naming (untrained items)Word (overt)8YesNo
restNone16N/AN/A
Conditions notesOne participant was < 10% on trained and untrained items at T1

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: picture naming (trained items) vs rest

Language conditionPicture naming (trained items)
Control conditionRest
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 2: picture naming (untrained items) vs rest

Language conditionPicture naming (untrained items)
Control conditionRest
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

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming (trained items) vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateΔ 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 notesPicture naming score (trained items) increased from 51.7 ± 24.8 to 78.8 ± 22.1, which was statistically significant (p < 0.0001)
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeOther
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details2 of the 11 patients were classified as outliers and excluded from analyses, however no plots are provided to justify their status as outliers
FindingsOther
Findings notesImproved 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

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastPicture naming (untrained items) vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateΔ 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 notesPicture naming score (untrained items) increased from 54.0 ± 24.3 to 70.5 ± 26.7, which was statistically significant (p= 0.002)
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeOther
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details2 of the 11 patients were classified as outliers and excluded from analyses, however no plots are provided to justify their status as outliers
FindingsOther
Findings notesImproved 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

Notes

Excluded analysesAdditional analyses correlating functional changes in the "delta ROI" with ROI extent, initial severity, duration of aphasia, overall speech activity, since limited detail is provided and only one ROI is reported

 

Raboyeau et al. (2008)

Reference

AuthorsRaboyeau G, De Boissezon X, Marie N, Balduyck S, Puel M, Bézy C, Démonet JF, Cardebat D
TitleRight hemisphere activation in recovery from aphasia: lesion effect or function recruitment?
ReferenceNeurology 2008; 70: 2900-298
PMID18209203
DOI10.1212/01.wnl.0000287115.85956.87

Participants

LanguageFrench
Inclusion criteriaNaming deficit; good comprehension
Number of individuals with aphasia10
Number of control participants20
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 evaluationMontreal-Toulouse Aphasia Battery
Aphasia severityMild (but had initially been severe)
Aphasia type4 anomic, 3 conduction, 2 Broca's, 1 AoS
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentRange 29.9-195.2 cc
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired6
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
picture naming (native language)Word (overt)aphasia: 4; control: 2YesUnknown
picture naming (relearned foreign language) (controls only)Word (overt)2YesUnknown
restNone2N/AN/A
Conditions notesPicture naming in native language in controls not analyzed in this paper

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?No (see specific limitation(s) below)

Contrast 1: picture naming (native in patients; relearned foreign in controls) vs rest

Language conditionPicture naming (native in patients; relearned foreign in controls)
Control conditionRest
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 notesPresumably only the relearned foreign condition was used in controls (not the native condition), but this is not stated explicitly

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming (native in patients; relearned foreign in controls) vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 notesRelearned 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent30 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical detailsNature 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

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastPicture naming (native in patients; relearned foreign in controls) vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateΔ 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent30 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical detailsNature 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

Notes

Excluded analysesConjunction analysis, because it collapsed across patients and controls

 

Richter et al. (2008)

Reference

AuthorsRichter M, Miltner WH, Straube T
TitleAssociation between therapy outcome and right-hemispheric activation in chronic aphasia
ReferenceBrain 2008; 131: 1391-1401
PMID18349055
DOI10.1093/brain/awn043

Participants

LanguageGerman
Inclusion criteriaMain deficits in production rather than comprehension
Number of individuals with aphasia16 (plus 8 excluded: 5 completed only one of the two sessions; 3 unable to perform the tasks)
Number of control participants8
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 evaluationAAT, two subtests of ANELT
Aphasia severityTT range 5-50
Aphasia type7 anomic, 7 Broca's, 2 global; it was an inclusion criterion that the main deficits were in production
First stroke only?Not stated
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeBlock
Total images acquired134
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
reading words silentlyWord (covert)4YesUnknown
word stem completionWord (covert)4YesUnknown
restNone10 (?)N/AN/A
Conditions notesPreliminary data on the tasks suggests that patients would have been able to perform them, and patients were interviewed regarding the tasks after each fMRI session, however the outcomes of these interviews are not reported

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: reading words silently vs rest

Language conditionReading words silently
Control conditionRest
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 notesAppears to be somewhat L-lateralized frontal, but not well visualized
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: word stem completion vs rest

Language conditionWord stem completion
Control conditionRest
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 notesBilateral frontal; other regions not well visualized
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastReading words silently vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeR hemisphere
Correction for multiple comparisonsMixed** (major limitation)
SoftwareBrainVoyager QX 1.7
Voxelwise pR IFG/R insula ROI: .005; elsewhere: .001
Cluster extentR IFG/R insula ROI: 0.108 cc; elsewhere: none
Statistical details
Findings↑ R IFG
↑ R insula
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastWord stem completion vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeR hemisphere
Correction for multiple comparisonsMixed** (major limitation)
SoftwareBrainVoyager QX 1.7
Voxelwise pR IFG/R insula ROI: .005; elsewhere: .001
Cluster extentR IFG/R insula ROI: 0.108 cc; elsewhere: none
Statistical details
Findings↑ R dorsal precentral
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastReading words silently vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T1
CovariateSubsequent 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeR hemisphere
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
SoftwareBrainVoyager QX 1.7
Voxelwise p.05
Cluster extentNone
Statistical detailsNature 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 notesIncreased activity correlated with more behavioral improvement

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrastWord stem completion vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T1
CovariateSubsequent 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeR hemisphere
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
SoftwareBrainVoyager QX 1.7
Voxelwise p.05
Cluster extentNone
Statistical detailsNature of thresholding not entirely clear, so coded according to best guess
Findings↑ R IFG
↑ R insula
Findings notesIncreased activity correlated with more behavioral improvement

Voxelwise analysis 5

First level contrastReading words silently vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeR hemisphere
Correction for multiple comparisonsMixed** (major limitation)
SoftwareBrainVoyager QX 1.7
Voxelwise pR IFG/R insula ROI: .005; elsewhere: .001
Cluster extentR IFG/R insula ROI: 0.108 cc; elsewhere: none
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 6

First level contrastWord stem completion vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeR hemisphere
Correction for multiple comparisonsMixed** (major limitation)
SoftwareBrainVoyager QX 1.7
Voxelwise pR IFG/R insula ROI: .005; elsewhere: .001
Cluster extentR IFG/R insula ROI: 0.108 cc; elsewhere: none
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastReading words silently vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T1
CovariateSubsequent 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastWord stem completion vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T1
CovariateSubsequent 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 3

First level contrastReading words silently vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateΔ 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsCircular because functional ROIs based on related contrast on same data
Findings↓ R posterior MTG
Findings notesDecreased activity over time correlated with more behavioral improvement

ROI analysis 4

First level contrastWord stem completion vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateΔ 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsCircular because functional ROIs based on related contrast on same data
Findings↓ R IFG
↓ R insula
Findings notesDecreased activity over time correlated with more behavioral improvement

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

de Boissezon et al. (2009)

Reference

Authorsde Boissezon X, Marie N, Castel-Lacanal E, Marque P, Bezy C, Gros H, Lotterie JA, Cardebat D, Puel M, Demonet JF
TitleGood recovery from aphasia is also supported by right basal ganglia: a longitudinal controlled PET study
ReferenceEur J Phys Rehabil Med 2009; 45: 547-558
PMID20032914
DOIN/A

Participants

LanguageFrench
Inclusion criteriaOnly part of L MCA; able to perform word generation; no severe aphasia
Number of individuals with aphasia13
Number of control participants0
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 evaluationMontreal-Toulouse Aphasia Battery
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia typeT1: 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 typeMixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentRange 0.9-43.4 cc
Lesion locationL MCA (7 subcortical, 6 cortical)
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired6
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
word generationWord (overt)4YesYes
restNone2N/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: word generation vs rest

Language conditionWord generation
Control conditionRest
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 notesControl data in Cardebat et al. (2003); bilateral fronto-temporal and some other regions per text
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastWord generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 notesP = 0.07
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extent100 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical detailsContrast 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 notesBased on coordinates in Table 5

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastWord generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extent100 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical detailsContrast 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

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastWord generation vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateWord 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent100 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical detailsEach 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

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Fridriksson et al. (2009)

Reference

AuthorsFridriksson J, Baker JM, Moser D
TitleCortical mapping of naming errors in aphasia
ReferenceHum Brain Mapp 2009; 30: 2487-2498
PMID19294641
DOI10.1002/hbm.20683

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia11
Number of control participants10
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 evaluationWAB; BNT
Aphasia severityAQ range 31.8-91.5
Aphasia type6 anomic, 4 Broca's, 1 transcortical motor; alternatively: 6 fluent, 5 non-fluent
First stroke only?Not stated
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentRange 3.0-342.2 cc
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeEvent-related
Total images acquired120
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 notessparse sampling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
picture namingWord (overt)80YesNo
viewing scrambled imagesNone40N/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images

Language conditionPicture naming (correct trials)
Control conditionViewing 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 notesControl 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

Contrast 2: picture naming (phonemic paraphasias) vs picture naming (correct trials)

Language conditionPicture naming (phonemic paraphasias)
Control conditionPicture 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 notesControl data N/A because controls do not typically make errors
Contrast notes

Contrast 3: picture naming (semantic paraphasias) vs picture naming (correct trials)

Language conditionPicture naming (semantic paraphasias)
Control conditionPicture 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 notesControl data N/A because controls do not typically make errors
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeVoxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareFSL (FEAT 5.4)
Voxelwise p~.01 (z > 2.3)
Cluster extentBased on GRFT
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastPicture naming (phonemic paraphasias) vs picture naming (correct trials)
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeVoxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareFSL (FEAT 5.4)
Voxelwise p~.01 (z > 2.3)
Cluster extentBased on GRFT
Statistical details
Findings↑ L superior parietal
↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↑ L occipital
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastPicture naming (semantic paraphasias) vs picture naming (correct trials)
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeVoxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareFSL (FEAT 5.4)
Voxelwise p~.01 (z > 2.3)
Cluster extentBased on GRFT
Statistical details
Findings↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↑ R occipital
Findings notes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariatePicture 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↑ R IFG
↑ R insula
Findings notesR IFG showed more activation in patients who produced more correct responses

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Menke et al. (2009)

Reference

AuthorsMenke R, Meinzer M, Kugel H, Deppe M, Baumgärtner A, Schiffbauer H, Thomas M, Kramer K, Lohmann H, Flöel A, Knecht S, Breitenstein C
TitleImaging short- and long-term training success in chronic aphasia
ReferenceBMC Neurosci 2009; 10: 118
PMID19772660
DOI10.1186/1471-2202-10-118

Participants

LanguageGerman
Inclusion criteriaModerate to severe anomia
Number of individuals with aphasia8
Number of control participants9
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 evaluationAAT
Aphasia severity6 moderate-severe, 2 severe
Aphasia type7 Broca's, 1 global
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeMixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeEvent-related
Total images acquiredprobably ~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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
picture naming (trained items)Word (overt)30NoNo
picture naming (untrained items)Word (overt)30NoNo
picture naming (already known items)Word (overt)30YesUnknown
restNoneimplicit baselineN/AN/A
Conditions notesPatients could not name trained and untrained items at baseline

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: picture naming (trained items) vs rest

Language conditionPicture naming (trained items)
Control conditionRest
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 notesTable of coordinates only
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: picture naming (untrained items) vs rest

Language conditionPicture naming (untrained items)
Control conditionRest
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 notesTable of coordinates only
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming (trained items) vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateSubsequent 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsMixed** (major limitation)
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.05, but at least one voxel in the cluster had to be p < .001
Cluster extent0.270 cc
Statistical detailsThere 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

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastPicture naming (untrained items) vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T3 vs T1
CovariateSubsequent 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsMixed** (major limitation)
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p.05, but at least one voxel in the cluster had to be p < .001
Cluster extent0.270 cc
Statistical detailsThere 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

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Specht et al. (2009)

Reference

AuthorsSpecht K, Zahn R, Willmes K, Weis S, Holtel C, Krause BJ, Herzog H, Huber W
TitleJoint independent component analysis of structural and functional images reveals complex patterns of functional reorganisation in stroke aphasia
ReferenceNeuroImage 2009; 47: 2057-2063
PMID19524049
DOI10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.011

Participants

LanguageGerman
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia12
Number of control participants12
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 evaluationAAT
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia type3 global, 3 Wernicke's, 2 amnestic, 2 Broca's, 2 unclassified
First stroke only?Not stated
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL MCA, with greatest overlap in the posterior STG
Participants notes15 controls were scanned but 3 were randomly excluded to match group sizes for jICA.

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired9
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
lexical decision (words vs pseudowords)Button press3YesYes
lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words)Button press3YesYes
tone decisionButton press3YesYes
Conditions notesBehavioral data was lost, but it is clearly stated that all participants could perform all tasks above chance; the tone decision task is not described in sufficient detail, but since it is not used in any contrast of interest, the conditions are coded as being clearly described

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: lexical decision (words vs pseudowords) vs lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words)

Language conditionLexical decision (words vs pseudowords)
Control conditionLexical 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 notesThe contrast activated a ventral part of the L IFG, along with L anterior cingulate and L DLPFC
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastLexical decision (words vs pseudowords) vs lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words)
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM5
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extent0.64 cc
Statistical details
Findings↑ R posterior STG
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notesActivation is 1105 voxels (> 8 cc) so quite convincing, but when the contrast was examined in the patient group, this region was not activated.

Complex analysis 1

First level contrastLexical decision (words vs pseudowords) vs lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words)
Analysis classCross-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 analysisComplex
Statistical detailsJoint 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.
FindingsOther
Findings notesThe 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.

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Warren et al. (2009)

Reference

AuthorsWarren JE, Crinion JT, Lambon Ralph MA, Wise RJ
TitleAnterior temporal lobe connectivity correlates with functional outcome after aphasic stroke
ReferenceBrain 2009; 132: 3428-3442
PMID19903736
DOI10.1093/brain/awp270

Participants

LanguageUK English
Inclusion criteriaComprehension deficit per CAT and TROG (1 patient did not meet this criterion); anterolateral superior temporal cortex spared
Number of individuals with aphasia16 (plus 8 excluded: lesions involved L anterolateral superior temporal cortex)
Number of control participants11
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 evaluationCAT, TROG
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia typeNot stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentPatients with positive anterior temporal interconnectivity: mean 93.3 ± 24.0 cc; patients with negative anterior temporal interconnectivity: mean 96.1 ± 27.6 cc
Lesion locationL not including anterolateral superior temporal cortex; maximal overlap in posterior superior temporal cortex
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired12-16
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 notestwo different scanners used for patients, but not for controls

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
listening to narrative speechNone6-8N/AN/A
listening to reversed speechNone6-8N/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech

Language conditionListening to narrative speech
Control conditionListening 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 notes11 participants; L-lateralized posterior temporal, bilateral anterior temporal, no frontal
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsSomewhat circular because ROIs were defined only in regions where controls showed significant connectivity (even though ROIs were anatomical)
FindingsNone
Findings notesL IFG pars triangularis almost reached significance (p = .053) for more activation in patients

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateAuditory 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↑ L anterior temporal
Findings notes

ROI analysis 3

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateWritten 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 4

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateAuditory 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notesL anterior temporal p = .08

ROI analysis 5

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateAuditory 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notesL anterior temporal p = .09

ROI analysis 6

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateConnectivity 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 7

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateTime 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 8

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateLesion 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 9

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsSomewhat 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

ROI analysis 10

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsSomewhat 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
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 11

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsExcluded 4 patients with L IFG damage
Findings↑ L IFG pars triangularis
Findings notes

Complex analysis 1

First level contrastListening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateLesion 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 analysisComplex
Statistical detailsVLSM with FDR correction was used to identify any regions in which damage was predictive of L anterior temporal activation.
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analyses(1) all connectivity analyses because they were based on either both conditions (whole brain analysis) or only the narrative condition (ROI analyses), except where connectivity was investigated in relation to task-based activation differences; (2) correlation with age (covariate not language-related)

 

Chau et al. (2010)

Reference

AuthorsChau AC, Fai Cheung RT, Jiang X, Au-Yeung PK, Li LS
TitleAn fMRI study showing the effect of acupuncture in chronic stage stroke patients with aphasia
ReferenceJ Acupunct Meridian Stud 2010; 30: 53-57
PMID20633517
DOI10.1016/s2005-2901(10)60009-x

Participants

LanguageCantonese
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia7
Number of control participants0
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 evaluationCantonese Aphasia Battery (modified WAB)
Aphasia severity5 patients had AQ > 75, 2 had AQ < 30
Aphasia typeNot stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Location only
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion location3 L MCA, 2 L frontal, 2 L basal ganglia
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeBlock
Total images acquired90?
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?No* (moderate limitation) (nature of questions not described in detail)
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
answering questions from Cantonese Aphasia BatteryButton press3UnknownUnknown
visual decisionButton press3UnknownUnknown
Conditions notesResponses involved raising left or right finger (not button press per se)

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: answering questions from Cantonese Aphasia Battery vs visual decision

Language conditionAnswering questions from Cantonese Aphasia Battery
Control conditionVisual 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

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastAnswering questions from Cantonese Aphasia Battery vs visual decision
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateΔ 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsUnclear or not stated
SoftwareSPM2
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsStated 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 notesFinding based on table; additional small activations are shown in figure but not table

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Fridriksson (2010)

Reference

AuthorsFridriksson J
TitlePreservation and modulation of specific left hemisphere regions is vital for treated recovery from anomia in stroke
ReferenceJ Neurosci 2010; 30: 11558-11564
PMID20810877
DOI10.1523/jneurosci.2227-10.2010

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia19 (plus 7 excluded: 6 for making fewer than 5 correct responses in one or more sessions; 1 for excessive head motion)
Number of control participants0
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 evaluationWAB
Aphasia severityAQ mean 60.4 ± 25.6 (including excluded patients)
Aphasia type11 anomic, 10 Broca's, 3 conduction, 1 transcortical motor, 1 Wernicke's (including excluded patients)
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notesDemographic data includes excluded patients

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeEvent-related
Total images acquired120
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 notessparse sampling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
picture namingWord (overt)80YesUnknown
viewing abstract picturesNone40N/AN/A
Conditions notesPatients with fewer than 5 correct responses in any session were excluded; there were probably some patients who made 5 or more correct responses but less than 10%, but this is not reported

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures

Language conditionPicture naming (correct trials)
Control conditionViewing 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 notesControl 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

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateΔ 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareFSL 4.1
Voxelwise p~.01 (z > 2.3)
Cluster extentBased 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 notesActivated regions were on the borders on the lesion distribution in the 19 included patients

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Fridriksson et al. (2010)

Reference

AuthorsFridriksson J, Bonilha L, Baker JM, Moser D, Rorden C
TitleActivity in preserved left hemisphere regions predicts anomia severity in aphasia
ReferenceCereb Cortex 2010; 20: 1013-1019
PMID19687294
DOI10.1093/cercor/bhp160

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia15
Number of control participants9
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 evaluationWAB
Aphasia severityAQ mean 77.1, range 47.1-93.7
Aphasia type10 anomic, 3 Broca's, 2 conduction
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeEvent-related
Total images acquired120
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 notessparse sampling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
picture namingWord (overt)80YesYes
viewing abstract picturesNone40N/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures

Language conditionPicture naming (correct trials)
Control conditionViewing 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 notesL-lateralized frontal and temporal activations, but also bilateral visual, motor and auditory
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariatePicture 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareFSL 4.1
Voxelwise p~.02 (z > 2)
Cluster extentBased on GRFT
Statistical details
Findings↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
↑ L occipital
↑ L anterior cingulate
Findings notesGreater activation was associated with better picture naming; L IFG pars orbitalis activation classified as middle frontal gyrus in the paper, but coordinates suggest otherwise

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastPicture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareFSL 4.1
Voxelwise p~.02 (z > 2)
Cluster extentBased on GRFT
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariatePicture 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsThe 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
FindingsOther
Findings notesPatients with better naming showed greater activation than controls, while the patients with poorer naming showed less activation than controls.

Complex analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateLesion 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 analysisComplex
Statistical detailsVLSM 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.
FindingsOther
Findings notesOnly in the L IFG pars opercularis was damage predictive of reduced activation in the potentially compensatory network.

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Sharp et al. (2010)

Reference

AuthorsSharp DJ, Turkheimer FE, Bose SK, Scott SK, Wise RJ
TitleIncreased frontoparietal integration after stroke and cognitive recovery
ReferenceAnn Neurol 2010; 68: 753-756
PMID20687116
DOI10.1002/ana.21866

Participants

LanguageUK English
Inclusion criteriaLesion in vicinity of L STG; no extensive frontal damage; no inferior temporal damage; able to perform tasks
Number of individuals with aphasia9
Number of control participants18
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 evaluationSubtests from CAT, subtests from PALPA, Action for dysphasic adults, TROG, PPT
Aphasia severityMild
Aphasia typeNot stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationLesion in vicinity of L STG; no extensive frontal damage; no inferior temporal damage
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired16
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
semantic decisionWord (overt)aphasia: 8; control: 4YesYes
syllable count decisionWord (overt)aphasia: 8; control: 4YesUnknown
semantic decision (noise vocoded) (control only)Word (overt)4 (control)YesYes
syllable count decision (noise vocoded) (control only)Word (overt)4 (control)YesYes
Conditions notesSeems the response was a spoken word, but this is not stated explicitly; assuming all individuals could do the semantic task because this was an inclusion criterion and behavioral data (PPT) supports, but not sure about the phonological task

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: 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)

Language conditionSemantic decision (clear in patients; average of clear and noise vocoded in controls)
Control conditionSyllable 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 notesSignificant 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 notesNot stated exactly what contrast was used in controls
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastSemantic 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 classCross-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 notesAccuracy 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeOther
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 comparisonsNo direct comparison
Statistical details
FindingsOther
Findings notesPatients 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

Notes

Excluded analyses(1) correlations between connection strength of AG-IT and language performance, because there was no functional control condition; (2) controls showed greater connectivity between L SFG and L AG while performing the semantic task with noise vocoded speech relative to clear speech, supporting the interpretation that greater connectivity reflects effortful processing

 

Thompson et al. (2010)

Reference

AuthorsThompson CK, den Ouden DB, Bonakdarpour B, Garibaldi K, Parrish TB
TitleNeural plasticity and treatment-induced recovery of sentence processing in agrammatism
ReferenceNeuropsychologia 2010; 48: 3211-3227
PMID20603138
DOI10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.06.036

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteriaAgrammatic
Number of individuals with aphasia6
Number of control participants12
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 evaluationWAB, NAVS, narrative language sample
Aphasia severityAQ range 66.8-85.0
Aphasia typeAll agrammatic; per WAB scores provided: 3 Broca's, 3 unclassified
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion location5 L MCA, 1 R MCA with aphasia
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeEvent-related
Total images acquirednot 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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
auditory sentence-picture matching (auditory; object cleft)Button press60NoNo
auditory sentence-picture matching (subject cleft)Button press60YesYes
auditory sentence-picture matching (simple past tense active)Button press60YesNo
restNoneimplicit baselineN/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: auditory sentence-picture matching (all three sentence types) vs rest

Language conditionAuditory sentence-picture matching (all three sentence types)
Control conditionRest
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

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastAuditory sentence-picture matching (all three sentence types) vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo 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 notesThese are the regions involved in what the authors interpret as a "general shift"

Notes

Excluded analysesIndividual patient analyses

 

Tyler et al. (2010)

Reference

AuthorsTyler LK, Wright P, Randall B, Marslen-Wilson WD, Stamatakis EA
TitleReorganization of syntactic processing following left-hemisphere brain damage: does right-hemisphere activity preserve function?
ReferenceBrain 2010; 133: 3396-3408
PMID20870779
DOI10.1093/brain/awq262

Participants

LanguageUK English
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia14
Number of control participants10
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 evaluationSentence-picture matching, lexical decision, phonological similarity, word repetition, sentence repetition, morphological similarity, semantic categorization, sentence acceptability
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia typeNot stated
First stroke only?Not stated
Stroke typeMixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL
Participants notes2 of the 14 patients were not stroke, but were post resective surgery

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeBlock
Total images acquired69
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 notessparse sampling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
listening to normal sentences and detecting a target wordButton press2YesUnknown
listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target wordButton press2YesUnknown
listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target wordButton press2YesUnknown
listening to "musical rain" and detecting a period of white noiseButton press2YesUnknown
restNone2N/AN/A
Conditions notesAuditory presentation; target detection task with early and late targets; 12-15 trials per block with single sparse acquisition each, but only one block per run, in fixed order; task can apparently be performed by patients with brain damage, but accuracy is not reported

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word

Language conditionListening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word
Control conditionListening 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 notesThere 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 notesThere 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 notesThe contrast is intended to identify regions involved in syntactic processing, however it seems possible that there are semantic differences between these conditions also

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastListening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word
Analysis classCross-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 notesThe two groups showed similar differences between RTs in the two conditions of the contrast
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
SoftwareSPM5
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsQualitative 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 notesSeveral other potential differences are apparent in the figure, but only the differences tabulated are interpreted in the text

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastListening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateRT 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 notesAnalyses focuses on RT differences between early and late targets, not on mean RT per se
Type of analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical details
Findings↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
Findings notesL IFG showed more activation in patients that had a larger target position effect (indicative of better syntactic processing)

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastListening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateRT 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 3

First level contrastListening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateRT 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 4

First level contrastListening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateDamage 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notesNo correlation (p = .57)

ROI analysis 5

First level contrastListening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateSyntactic 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notesNo correlation (p = .41)

Complex analysis 1

First level contrastListening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateLesion 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 analysisComplex
Statistical detailsVBM 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.
FindingsOther
Findings notesOnly in the L IFG itself was damage predictive of reduced activation in the L IFG.

Notes

Excluded analyses(1) patients, unlike controls, showed a correlation between R IFG and R MTG activity, but the authors do not make much of this, and there is no direct comparison was reported to controls; (2) a nonsignificant correlation between L pMTG activation in patients (lacking at the group level) and tissue integrity in that same region

 

van Oers et al. (2010)

Reference

Authorsvan Oers CA, Vink M, van Zandvoort MJ, van der Worp HB, de Haan EH, Kappelle LJ, Ramsey NF, Dijkhuizen RM
TitleContribution of the left and right inferior frontal gyrus in recovery from aphasia: a functional MRI study in stroke patients with preserved hemodynamic responsiveness
ReferenceNeuroImage 2010; 49: 885-893
PMID19733673
DOI10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.08.057

Participants

LanguageDutch
Inclusion criteriaMCA; mRS < 3; able to perform at least 2 out of the 3 tasks
Number of individuals with aphasia13
Number of control participants13
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 evaluationAAT, BNT, TT
Aphasia severity4 moderate, 4 severe, 3 recovered, 2 mild; all had aphasia initially
Aphasia type5 anomic, 4 Broca's, 3 recovered, 1 Wernicke's
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentRange 6.0-167.3 cc
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeBlock
Total images acquired3036
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 notesbreath holding scan also done to measure hemodynamic responsiveness

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
written word-picture matchingButton press6YesYes
semantic decisionButton press6YesYes
verb generationWord (covert)8YesYes
visual decisionButton press12UnknownUnknown
restNone20N/AN/A
Conditions notesPatients who could not do tasks were excluded from analyses of those tasks (1 patient from semantic decision; 3 patients from verb generation); wording is somewhat unclear regarding exclusion of patients who could not perform verb generation, but we assume they were excluded

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?No (see specific limitation(s) below)

Contrast 1: written word-picture matching vs visual decision

Language conditionWritten word-picture matching
Control conditionVisual 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 notesAccuracy 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 notesNot 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

Contrast 2: semantic decision vs visual decision

Language conditionSemantic decision
Control conditionVisual 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 notesAccuracy 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 notesNot 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

Contrast 3: verb generation vs rest

Language conditionVerb generation
Control conditionRest
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

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No (see specific limitation(s) below)

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastWritten word-picture matching vs visual decision
Analysis classCross-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 notesAccuracy not reported for control condition
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeMixed
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↓ L IFG
↓ LI (language network)
↓ LI (frontal)
Findings notes

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastSemantic decision vs visual decision
Analysis classCross-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 notesAccuracy not reported for control condition
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeMixed
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↓ L IFG
↓ LI (language network)
↓ LI (frontal)
Findings notes

ROI analysis 3

First level contrastVerb generation vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeMixed
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↓ L IFG
↓ LI (language network)
↓ LI (frontal)
Findings notes

ROI analysis 4

First level contrastWritten word-picture matching vs visual decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariatePicture-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeMixed
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 5

First level contrastSemantic decision vs visual decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateSemantic 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeMixed
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 6

First level contrastWritten word-picture matching vs visual decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateOverall 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeMixed
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 7

First level contrastSemantic decision vs visual decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateOverall 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeMixed
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsNot clear if it was LI for whole language network
Findings↑ LI (language network)
Findings notes

ROI analysis 8

First level contrastVerb generation vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateOverall 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeMixed
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 9

First level contrastWritten word-picture matching vs visual decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateLesion 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 10

First level contrastSemantic decision vs visual decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateLesion 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 11

First level contrastVerb generation vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateLesion 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 12

First level contrastWritten word-picture matching vs visual decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateDamage 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 13

First level contrastSemantic decision vs visual decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateDamage 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 14

First level contrastVerb generation vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateDamage 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 15

First level contrastWritten word-picture matching vs visual decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariatePrevious (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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 16

First level contrastSemantic decision vs visual decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariatePrevious (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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↑ L IFG
Findings notes

ROI analysis 17

First level contrastVerb generation vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariatePrevious (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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↑ L IFG
Findings notes

ROI analysis 18

First level contrastWritten word-picture matching vs visual decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariatePrevious (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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 19

First level contrastSemantic decision vs visual decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariatePrevious (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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↑ L IFG
↑ R IFG
Findings notes

ROI analysis 20

First level contrastVerb generation vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariatePrevious (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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↑ L IFG
↑ R IFG
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Papoutsi et al. (2011)

Reference

AuthorsPapoutsi M, Stamatakis EA, Griffiths J, Marslen-Wilson WD, Tyler LK
TitleIs left fronto-temporal connectivity essential for syntax? Effective connectivity, tractography and performance in left-hemisphere damaged patients
ReferenceNeuroImage 2011; 58: 656-664
PMID21722742
DOI10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.036

Participants

LanguageUK English
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia14
Number of control participants15
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 evaluationSentence-picture matching, grammaticality judgment, lexical decision, phonological discrimination, semantic categorization, sentence repetition, word repetition
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia typeNot stated
First stroke only?Not stated
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes1 patient had post-surgical haematoma rather than stroke (per Tyler et al., 2011)

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeEvent-related
Total images acquired1059
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")None42N/AN/A
listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")None42N/AN/A
listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate")None42N/AN/A
listening to filler sentencesNone126N/AN/A
listening to "musical rain"None42N/AN/A
restNoneimplicit baselineN/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")

Language conditionListening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate")
Control conditionListening 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 notesControl data in Tyler et al. (2011); L frontal and temporal
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastListening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateDifference 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extentBased on GRFT
Statistical details
Findings↑ L insula
↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↑ L mid temporal
Findings notes

Complex analysis 1

First level contrastListening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateModulation 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 analysisComplex
Statistical detailsA 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.
FindingsOther
Findings notesPatients 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

Complex analysis 2

First level contrastListening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateModulation 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 analysisComplex
Statistical detailsA similar PPI analysis was carried out with the L pMTG as the seed region. Thresholding was the same as in the previous analysis.
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Sebastian & Kiran (2011)

Reference

AuthorsSebastian R, Kiran S.
TitleTask-modulated neural activation patterns in chronic stroke patients with aphasia
ReferenceAphasiology 2011; 25: 927-951
PMIDN/A
DOI10.1080/02687038.2011.557436

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia8
Number of control participants8
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 evaluationWAB, BNT, portions of PALPA, PPT, CLQT
Aphasia severityAQ range 74.0-97.8
Aphasia type6 anomic, 2 recovered
First stroke only?Not stated
Stroke typeMixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentRange 23-45 cc
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeEvent-related
Total images acquirednot 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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
picture namingWord (overt)60YesYes
viewing scrambled images and saying "pass"Word (overt)60UnknownUnknown
semantic decisionButton press48YesYes
visual decisionButton press48UnknownUnknown
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "pass"

Language conditionPicture naming (correct trials)
Control conditionViewing 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 notesAccuracy/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 notesReporting is selective, but appears mostly bilateral with slight L-lateralization of language areas
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: semantic decision (correct trials) vs visual decision

Language conditionSemantic decision (correct trials)
Control conditionVisual 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 notesAccuracy/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 notesClearly lateralized frontal activation, but very modest temporal activation
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "pass"
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateLesion 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeMixed
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ LI (language network)
Findings notesLarger lesions were associated with more R posterior perisylvian activation

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastSemantic decision (correct trials) vs visual decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateLesion 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeMixed
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analyses(1) individual patient analyses; (2) comparisons between the two language tasks

 

Szaflarski et al. (2011)

Reference

AuthorsSzaflarski JP, Vannest J, Wu SW, DiFrancesco MW, Banks C, Gilbert DL
TitleExcitatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation induces improvements in chronic post-stroke aphasia
ReferenceMed Sci Monit 2011; 17: CR132-139
PMID21358599
DOI10.12659/msm.881446

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteriaModerate aphasia, L MCA
Number of individuals with aphasia8 (plus 3 excluded: 2 metallic artifact; 1 seizure at time of stroke)
Number of control participants0
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 evaluationBNT; phonemic fluency, semantic fluency, complex ideation from BDAE, PPVT, communicative activities log
Aphasia severityModerate
Aphasia type4 Broca's, 3 anomic, 1 anomic/conduction
First stroke only?Not stated
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeBlock
Total images acquirednot 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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?No (based on Binder et al. (1997), but details not reported)
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
semantic decisionButton pressnot statedUnknownNo
tone decisionButton pressnot statedUnknownNo
Conditions notesGroup only just above chance, unclear whether significantly better; clearly some individuals were at chance

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: semantic decision vs tone decision

Language conditionSemantic decision
Control conditionTone 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 notesControl data in Kim et al. (2011) and Szaflarski et al. (2008); L frontal and temporal, plus other semantic regions
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastSemantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 notesLanguage and control tasks both matched
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
Softwarein-house
Voxelwise p.05
Cluster extentNone
Statistical detailsThe 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 notesBased on a combination of coordinates in Table 2, and Figure 3

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastSemantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 notesLanguage and control tasks both matched
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsT1 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

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Tyler et al. (2011)

Reference

AuthorsTyler LK, Marslen-Wilson WD, Randall B, Wright P, Devereux BJ, Zhuang J, Papoutsi M, Stamatakis EA
TitleLeft inferior frontal cortex and syntax: function, structure and behaviour in patients with left hemisphere damage
ReferenceBrain 2011; 134: 415-431
PMID21278407
DOI10.1093/brain/awq369

Participants

LanguageUK English
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia14
Number of control participants15
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 evaluationSentence-picture matching, grammaticality judgment, lexical decision, phonological discrimination, semantic categorization, sentence repetition, word repetition
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia typeNot stated
First stroke only?Not stated
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes1 patient had post-surgical haematoma rather than stroke

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeEvent-related
Total images acquirednot 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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")None42N/AN/A
listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")None42N/AN/A
listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate")None42N/AN/A
listening to filler sentencesNone126N/AN/A
listening to "musical rain"None42N/AN/A
restNoneimplicit baselineN/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")

Language conditionListening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate)
Control conditionListening 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 notesL frontal and parietal; R frontal (but L > R); no L temporal
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")

Language conditionListening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")
Control conditionListening 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 notesL frontal and parietal; no L temporal
Contrast notes

Contrast 3: listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")

Language conditionListening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate")
Control conditionListening 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 notesL frontal, temporal and parietal, R frontal (but L > R)
Contrast notes

Contrast 4: listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")

Language conditionListening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate")
Control conditionListening 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 notesL frontal and temporal
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastListening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumePlausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
SoftwareSPM5
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 423
Findings↓ L IFG
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastListening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumePlausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
SoftwareSPM5
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 423
Findings↓ L IFG
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastListening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumePlausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
SoftwareSPM5
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 423
Findings↓ L IFG
Findings notesLack of patient activation in pMTG implied in text, but this activation looks fairly similar in patients and controls (c.f. Figure 3C vs 2C)

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrastListening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumePlausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
SoftwareSPM5
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 423
Findings↓ L IFG
↓ L posterior MTG
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 5

First level contrastListening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariatePerformance 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumePlausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareSPM5
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extentBased on GRFT
Statistical details
Findings↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
↑ R insula
↑ R mid temporal
Findings notesAlso L pMTG but this did not reach significance

Voxelwise analysis 6

First level contrastListening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariatePerformance 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumePlausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM5
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent30 (units not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
↑ L posterior MTG
↑ R insula
↑ R posterior STG
↑ R mid temporal
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 7

First level contrastListening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariatePerformance 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumePlausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM5
Voxelwise p.05
Cluster extent10 (units not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
↑ L posterior MTG
↑ R insula
↑ R mid temporal
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 8

First level contrastListening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateDifference 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumePlausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
SoftwareSPM5
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extentBased on GRFT
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastListening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariatePerformance 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↑ L IFG pars triangularis
↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
Findings notes

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastListening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateDifference 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeAnatomical
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analysesIt is mentioned in the supplementary material that there was no correlation between activation and lexical (non-syntactic) errors

 

Weiduschat et al. (2011)

Reference

AuthorsWeiduschat N, Thiel A, Rubi-Fessen I, Hartmann A, Kessler J, Merl P, Kracht L, Rommel T, Heiss WD
TitleEffects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in aphasic stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study
ReferenceStroke 2011; 42: 409-415
PMID21164121
DOI10.1161/strokeaha.110.597864

Participants

LanguageGerman
Inclusion criteriaAge 55-85
Number of individuals with aphasia10 (plus 4 excluded: 3 malfunction of TMS device or claustrophobia; 1 recovered nearly completely prior to intervention)
Number of control participants0
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 evaluationAAT
Aphasia severityT1: TT range 0-45 errors; T2: TT range 0-44 errors
Aphasia typeT1: 5 Wernicke's, 2 Broca's, 2 global, 1 amnestic fluent; T2: not stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Extent and location
Lesion extentRange 0.7-88.9 cc
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired8
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
verb generationWord (covert)4UnknownUnknown
restNone4N/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: verb generation vs rest

Language conditionVerb generation
Control conditionRest
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 notesControl data in Herholz et al. (1996); insufficient to fully validate the contrast
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastVerb generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeLaterality 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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastVerb generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeLaterality 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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 3

First level contrastVerb generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeLaterality 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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↑ LI (frontal)
Findings notesIFG LI was stable in the stimulation group, but shifted to the R in the sham group, yielding a significant difference between groups

ROI analysis 4

First level contrastVerb generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1 (regardless of rTMS)
CovariateΔ 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeLaterality indi(ces)
How many ROIs are there?1
What are the ROI(s)?IFG LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisonsOne only
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analyses(1) difference between groups at T1 (pre-treatment); (2) sham group T2 vs T1 (n = 4)

 

Allendorfer et al. (2012)

Reference

AuthorsAllendorfer JB, Kissela BM, Holland SK, Szaflarski JP
TitleDifferent patterns of language activation in post-stroke aphasia are detected by overt and covert versions of the verb generation fMRI task
ReferenceMed Sci Monit 2012; 18: CR135-147
PMID22367124
DOI10.12659/msm.882518

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteriaMCA; moderate-severe aphasia; mRS <= 3
Number of individuals with aphasia16
Number of control participants32
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 evaluationTT, PPVT, BNT, semantic and phonemic fluency, complex ideation subtest of BDAE
Aphasia severityModerate-severe; TT mean 25.5 ± 11.3; unclear how to reconcile moderate-severe severity with mostly anomic aphasia
Aphasia typeMostly anomic with some non-fluent
First stroke only?Not stated
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentRange 2.8-248.9 cc
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeMixed
Total images acquired435
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 notessparse sampling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
verb generation (overt, event-related)Multiple words (overt)15YesUnknown
verb generation (covert, event-related)Multiple words (covert)15UnknownUnknown
noun repetition (event-related)Multiple words (overt)15YesUnknown
verb generation (covert, block)Multiple words (covert)10UnknownUnknown
finger tapping (block)Other10UnknownUnknown
Conditions notesGiven the means and standard deviations presented, it is likely that some patients could not perform some tasks; post-scan recognition tests not considered to quantify performance

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: verb generation (covert, block) vs finger tapping (block)

Language conditionVerb generation (covert, block)
Control conditionFinger 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 notesStrongly lateralized frontal and temporal activation
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: verb generation (overt, event-related) vs noun repetition (event-related)

Language conditionVerb generation (overt, event-related)
Control conditionNoun 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 notesSomewhat L-lateralized frontal, temporal and parietal activations, but also extensive midline activation
Contrast notes

Contrast 3: verb generation (overt, event-related) vs verb generation (covert, event-related)

Language conditionVerb generation (overt, event-related)
Control conditionVerb 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 notesBilateral speech motor activations, but also extensive midline activation
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastVerb generation (covert, block) vs finger tapping (block)
Analysis classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeLaterality 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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↓ LI (temporal)
Findings notes

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastVerb generation (overt, event-related) vs noun repetition (event-related)
Analysis classCross-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 notesPatients less accurate and produced less responses on both conditions, but the difference between groups was greater for verb generation
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeLaterality 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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↓ LI (frontal)
Findings notes

ROI analysis 3

First level contrastVerb generation (overt, event-related) vs verb generation (covert, event-related)
Analysis classCross-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 notesOvert performance differed, so covert performance probably did too
Type of analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeLaterality 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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notesLack of lateralization in controls makes this analysis difficult to interpret

ROI analysis 4

First level contrastVerb generation (overt, event-related) vs noun repetition (event-related)
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateOvert 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
Findings notes

ROI analysis 5

First level contrastVerb generation (overt, event-related) vs verb generation (covert, event-related)
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateOvert 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analysesAnalysis of LI distribution (left/right/bilateral) yielded similar results

 

Fridriksson et al. (2012a)

Reference

AuthorsFridriksson J, Hubbard HI, Hudspeth SG, Holland AL, Bonilha L, Fromm D, Rorden C
TitleSpeech entrainment enables patients with Broca's aphasia to produce fluent speech
ReferenceBrain 2012a; 135: 3815-3829
PMID23250889
DOI10.1093/brain/aws301

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteriaBroca's aphasia
Number of individuals with aphasia10 (plus 3 excluded: 1 due to a metal implant; 2 for severely non-fluent speech)
Number of control participants20
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 evaluationWAB, BNT, AoS from ABA
Aphasia severityAQ mean 48.5 ± 20.6, range 20.9-73.5
Aphasia typeBroca's
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notesDemographic data includes excluded patients

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeEvent-related
Total images acquired180?
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 notessparse sampling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?No (rest condition implied but not described)
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment)Sentence (overt)30 (?)YesUnknown
listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentencesSentence (overt)30 (?)YesUnknown
listening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouthNone30 (?)N/AN/A
restNoneimplicit baselineN/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?No (see specific limitation(s) below)

Contrast 1: 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

Language conditionListening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment)
Control conditionListening 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 notesBehavioral 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 notesControl and patient data are combined; this contrast activates bilateral anterior insula and posterior MTG, slightly more extensive on the L
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs rest

Language conditionListening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment)
Control conditionRest
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 notesRest condition implied but not explicitly described

Contrast 3: listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences vs rest

Language conditionListening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences
Control conditionRest
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 notesRest condition implied but not explicitly described

Contrast 4: listening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouth vs rest

Language conditionListening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouth
Control conditionRest
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 notesRest condition implied but not explicitly described

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No** (major limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastListening 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 classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsUnclear or not stated
SoftwareFSL (FEAT 5.98)
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsThresholding not stated
Findings↑ L angular gyrus
↓ L anterior temporal
Findings notesBased on coordinates in Table 2

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastListening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsUnclear or not stated
SoftwareFSL (FEAT 5.98)
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsThresholding not stated
Findings↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R precuneus
↑ R occipital
↑ R hippocampus/MTL
↓ L supramarginal gyrus
Findings notesSome labels changed based on coordinates

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastListening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsUnclear or not stated
SoftwareFSL (FEAT 5.98)
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsThresholding not stated
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrastListening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouth vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsUnclear or not stated
SoftwareFSL (FEAT 5.98)
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsThresholding not stated
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastListening 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 classCross-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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical detailsThere were no interactions of group by condition; two regions showed main effects of group but this is not pertinent to the contrast
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Fridriksson et al. (2012b)

Reference

AuthorsFridriksson J, Richardson JD, Fillmore P, Cai B
TitleLeft hemisphere plasticity and aphasia recovery
ReferenceNeuroImage 2012b; 60: 854-863
PMID22227052
DOI10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.057

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia29 (plus 1 excluded: contraindications to MRI)
Number of control participants14
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 evaluationWAB
Aphasia severityAQ mean 57.9 ± 25.8, range 17.2-95.2
Aphasia type13 Broca's, 10 anomic, 3 conduction, 2 Wernicke's, 1 global, 1 transcortical motor
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeMixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentRange 7.7-420.5 cc
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notesDemographic data includes excluded patient

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeEvent-related
Total images acquired120
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 notessparse sampling; 26 patients were also scanned with arterial spin labelling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
picture namingWord (overt)80YesUnknown
viewing abstract picturesNone40N/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures

Language conditionPicture naming
Control conditionViewing 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 notesControl 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

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateΔ 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeOther
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsOther
Findings notesChange in perilesional non-language regions positively correlated with improvement in accuracy

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastPicture naming vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateΔ (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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeOther
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsOther
Findings notesChange in undamaged non-perilesional language regions negatively correlated with decrease in semantic errors

ROI analysis 3

First level contrastPicture naming vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateΔ (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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeOther
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsOther
Findings notesChange in perilesional language regions, and change in undamaged non-perilesional language regions, negatively correlated with decrease in phonological paraphasias

ROI analysis 4

First level contrastPicture naming vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T1
CovariateSubsequent 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeOther
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

ROI analysis 5

First level contrastPicture naming vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T1
CovariateSubsequent 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeOther
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsOther
Findings notesChange in perilesional language regions correlated with decrease in phonological paraphasias

ROI analysis 6

First level contrastPicture naming vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T1
CovariateSubsequent 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeOther
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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analyses(1) breakdown of frontal, temporal and parietal components of masks, because stepwise regression not described in sufficient detail; (2) pASL rCBF predictors not task-based; (3) ancillary analyses based on total naming responses instead of accuracy; (4) ancillary analyses after excluding one patient

 

Marcotte et al. (2012)

Reference

AuthorsMarcotte K, Adrover-Roig D, Damien B, de Préaumont M, Généreux S, Hubert M, Ansaldo AI
TitleTherapy-induced neuroplasticity in chronic aphasia
ReferenceNeuropsychologia 2012; 50: 1776-1786
PMID22564481
DOI10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.04.001

Participants

LanguageCanadian French
Inclusion criteriaModerate-severe aphasia; anomia
Number of individuals with aphasia9
Number of control participants0
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 evaluationMontreal-Toulouse Aphasia Battery, picture naming
Aphasia severityModerate-severe
Aphasia type7 Broca's, 1 Broca's + AoS, 1 Wernicke's + AoS
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentRange 14.6-295.8 cc
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeEvent-related
Total images acquirednot 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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
picture naming (already known items)Word (overt)20YesYes
picture naming (trained items)Word (overt)20NoNo
picture naming (untrained items)Word (overt)40NoNo
viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"Word (overt)20YesYes
restNoneimplicit baselineN/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?No (see specific limitation(s) below)

Contrast 1: picture naming (T1: known items; T2: trained items; correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"

Language conditionPicture naming (T1: known items; T2: trained items; correct trials)
Control conditionViewing 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 notesDifferent contrasts at different time points not clearly explained

Contrast 2: picture naming (known items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"

Language conditionPicture naming (known items, correct trials)
Control conditionViewing 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 notesDifferent contrasts at different time points not clearly explained

Contrast 3: picture naming (trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"

Language conditionPicture naming (trained items, correct trials)
Control conditionViewing 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 notesDifferent contrasts at different time points not clearly explained

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming (T1: known items; T2: trained items; correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
SoftwareSPM5
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 1780; different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained
Findings↑ L supramarginal gyrus
↓ L dorsal precentral
↓ L posterior MTG
Findings notesLabels based on figures rather than text

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastPicture naming (known items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T1
CovariateSubsequent 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM5
Voxelwise p.005
Cluster extent10 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical detailsDifferent 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 notesLabels based on figures and text

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastPicture naming (trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2
CovariatePrevious 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
SoftwareSPM5
Voxelwise p.005
Cluster extent10 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical detailsDifferent contrasts at different time points not clearly explained
Findings↑ L somato-motor
Findings notesLabel based on figure

Notes

Excluded analysesIndividual analyses of participants with more and less successful recovery

 

Schofield et al. (2012)

Reference

AuthorsSchofield TM, Penny WD, Stephan KE, Crinion JT, Thompson AJ, Price CJ, Leff AP
TitleChanges in auditory feedback connections determine the severity of speech processing deficits after stroke
ReferenceJ Neurosci 2012; 32: 4260-4270
PMID22442088
DOI10.1523/jneurosci.4670-11.2012

Participants

LanguageUK English
Inclusion criteriaComprehension deficit
Number of individuals with aphasia20 (plus 1 excluded: excessive head motion)
Number of control participants26
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 evaluationCAT
Aphasia severity11 patients (plus one excluded) had moderate comprehension impairments, 9 had severe comprehension impairments; this distribution was bimodal
Aphasia typeNot stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentRange 24.2-403.6 cc
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notesDemographic data includes excluded patient

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeBlock
Total images acquired488
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
listening to word pairs, speaker gender judgmentButton press18YesUnknown
listening to reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgmentButton press18YesUnknown
restNone40 (?)N/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: listening to word pairs or reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment vs rest

Language conditionListening to word pairs or reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment
Control conditionRest
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 notesControl data in Leff et al. (2008); auditory contrast, not intended to be language contrast
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: listening to word pairs, speaker gender judgment vs listening to reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment

Language conditionListening to word pairs, speaker gender judgment
Control conditionListening 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 notesBehavioral 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 notesControl data in Leff et al. (2008); L-lateralized activation of posterior STS
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?No** (major limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastListening to word pairs or reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extentNone
Statistical details
Findings↓ L Heschl's gyrus
Findings notesStructurally, HG was not significantly damaged in this group

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastListening to word pairs or reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsMixed** (major limitation)
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise pMGB: SVC; elsewhere: .001
Cluster extentNone
Statistical details
Findings↓ L posterior STG
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
↓ L thalamus
Findings notesSpecifically: PT, HG and MGB; structurally, the PT and HG were significantly damaged, but not the MGB

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastListening to word pairs or reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.001
Cluster extentNone
Statistical details
Findings↓ L posterior STG
Findings notesSpecifically, PT; structurally, severe patients had more damage in HG and PT

Notes

Excluded analysesIntelligibility contrasts, because findings are unclear: statements of significance in the text do not match Table 5; DCM analyses (which are the main focus of the paper)

 

Wright et al. (2012)

Reference

AuthorsWright P, Stamatakis EA, Tyler LK
TitleDifferentiating hemispheric contributions to syntax and semantics in patients with left-hemisphere lesions
ReferenceJ Neurosci 2012; 32: 8149-8157
PMID22699896
DOI10.1523/jneurosci.0485-12.2012

Participants

LanguageUK English
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia21
Number of control participants21
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 evaluationSentence-picture matching
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia typeNot stated
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes3 of the 21 patients were not stroke, but were post resective surgery

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeBlock
Total images acquired69
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 notessparse sampling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
listening to normal sentences and detecting a target wordButton press2YesYes
listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target wordButton press2YesYes
listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target wordButton press2YesYes
listening to "musical rain" and detecting a period of white noiseButton press2YesYes
restNone2N/AN/A
Conditions notesAuditory presentation; target detection task with early and late targets; 12-15 trials per block with single sparse acquisition each, but only one block of each condition per run, in fixed order

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: listening to normal sentences and detecting a target word vs rest

Language conditionListening to normal sentences and detecting a target word
Control conditionRest
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 notesBilateral superior temporal, sensorimotor and visual
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs rest

Language conditionListening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word
Control conditionRest
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

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastListening to normal sentences and detecting a target word vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo correction
SoftwareSPM5
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent
Statistical details
Findings↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L Heschl's gyrus
↓ L mid temporal
Findings notesAt 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

Complex analysis 1

First level contrastListening to normal sentences and detecting a target word vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateSee 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 analysisComplex
Statistical detailsJoint 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.
FindingsOther
Findings notesContrast 1 loaded primarily on the R STG for component 1 (the "semantics component") and on the L ITG for component 2 (the "syntax component").

Complex analysis 2

First level contrastListening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia
CovariateSee 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 analysisComplex
Statistical detailsJoint 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.
FindingsOther
Findings notesContrast 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").

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Szaflarski et al. (2013)

Reference

AuthorsSzaflarski JP, Allendorfer JB, Banks C, Vannest J, Holland SK
TitleRecovered vs. not-recovered from post-stroke aphasia: the contributions from the dominant and non-dominant hemispheres
ReferenceRestor Neurol Neurosci 2013; 31: 347-360
PMID23482065
DOI10.3233/rnn-120267

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia27
Number of control participants0
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 evaluationTT, BNT, semantic fluency, phonemic fluency, PPVT, complex ideation subtest of BDAE
Aphasia severityRecovered: TT mean 43 ± 1, >= 41; non-recovered: TT mean 23 ± 12, < 41
Aphasia typeNot stated
First stroke only?Not stated
Stroke typeNot stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentRecovered: median 9.2 cc, range 2.2-26.5 cc; non-recovered: median 74 cc, range 5.1-206.0 cc
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeBlock
Total images acquired330
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
semantic decisionButton press10NoNo
tone decisionButton press12NoNo
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: semantic decision vs tone decision

Language conditionSemantic decision
Control conditionTone 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 notesAccuracy 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 notesControl data in Kim et al. (2011) and Szaflarski et al. (2008); L frontal and temporal, plus other semantic regions
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastSemantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis classCross-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 notesInteraction 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on 3dClustSim
SoftwareAFNI
Voxelwise p.05
Cluster extent4.16 cc
Statistical detailsCluster-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

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastSemantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
CovariateBNT
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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsFamilywise error (FWE)
Statistical detailsCircular because defined based on recovered status
Findings↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastSemantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
CovariateSemantic 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsFamilywise error (FWE)
Statistical detailsCircular because defined based on recovered status
Findings↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes

ROI analysis 3

First level contrastSemantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
CovariateSingle 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsFamilywise error (FWE)
Statistical detailsCircular because defined based on recovered status
Findings↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes

ROI analysis 4

First level contrastSemantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
CovariateBDAE 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsFamilywise error (FWE)
Statistical detailsCircular because defined based on recovered status
Findings↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes

ROI analysis 5

First level contrastSemantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
CovariatePhonemic 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsFamilywise error (FWE)
Statistical detailsCircular because defined based on recovered status
Findings↓ R posterior STG
Findings notes

ROI analysis 6

First level contrastSemantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
CovariateSemantic 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeFunctional
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 comparisonsFamilywise error (FWE)
Statistical detailsCircular because defined based on recovered status
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Thiel et al. (2013)

Reference

AuthorsThiel A, Hartmann A, Rubi-Fessen I, Anglade C, Kracht L, Weiduschat N, Kessler J, Rommel T, Heiss WD
TitleEffects of noninvasive brain stimulation on language networks and recovery in early poststroke aphasia
ReferenceStroke 2013; 44: 2240-2246
PMID23813984
DOI10.1161/strokeaha.111.000574

Participants

LanguageGerman
Inclusion criteria
Number of individuals with aphasia24 (plus 6 excluded: 4 did not tolerate MRI or PET scans; 2 TMS device was defective)
Number of control participants0
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 evaluationAAT
Aphasia severityT1: rTMS group: AAT sum of scores mean 251.5 ± 32.4; sham group: mean 251.1 ± 39.5; T2 not stated
Aphasia typeT1: 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 typeIschemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Individual lesions
Lesion extentRTMS group: 233 ± 197 cc; sham group: 244 ± 243 cc; lesion extent in images appears much smaller than the stated volumes
Lesion locationL MCA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityPET (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 typePET
Total images acquired8
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
verb generationWord (overt)4UnknownUnknown
restNone4N/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: verb generation vs rest

Language conditionVerb generation
Control conditionRest
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 notesCites Weiduschat et al. (2011) which in turn cites Herholz et al. (1996) which provides some minimal control data
Contrast notes

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastVerb generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsNo direct comparison
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p
Cluster extent
Statistical detailsQualitative comparison on p. 2244
Findings↑ L IFG
↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ R IFG
↓ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
Findings notesApproximate interpretation of qualitative patterns shown in Figure 3; T1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastVerb generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeLaterality 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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsActual LIs are not reported, only change in LI
Findings↑ LI (language network)
Findings notesT1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastVerb generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateΔ 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 analysisRegion of interest (ROI)
ROI typeLaterality 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 comparisonsOne only
Statistical detailsModel did not include treatment group (rTMS vs sham)
Findings↑ LI (language network)
Findings notesPatients who improved more showed a greater leftward shift of activation; T1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Abel et al. (2014)

Reference

AuthorsAbel S, Weiller C, Huber W, Willmes K
TitleNeural underpinnings for model-oriented therapy of aphasic word production
ReferenceNeuropsychologia 2014; 57: 154-165
PMID24686092
DOI10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.03.010

Participants

LanguageGerman
Inclusion criteriaAnomia; no severe AoS or dysarthria
Number of individuals with aphasia14 (plus 9 excluded: 4 for ceiling performance; 5 for technical problems)
Number of control participants0
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 evaluationAAT
Aphasia severityNot stated
Aphasia type8 Broca's, 3 Wernicke's, 1 fluent non-classifiable, 1 global, 1 transcortical sensory
First stroke only?Yes
Stroke typeMixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL MCA; 2 also had ACA
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeEvent-related
Total images acquired560
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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
picture naming (semantic trained items)Word (overt)30YesUnknown
picture naming (phonological trained items)Word (overt)30YesUnknown
picture naming (untrained items)Word (overt)30YesUnknown
picture naming (already known items)Word (overt)42YesUnknown
restNoneimplicit baselineN/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: picture naming (all conditions) vs rest

Language conditionPicture naming (all conditions)
Control conditionRest
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 notesBut see control data reported in a subsequent paper (Abel et al., 2015)
Contrast notes

Contrast 2: picture naming (trained items) vs picture naming (untrained items)

Language conditionPicture naming (trained items)
Control conditionPicture 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 notesTrained 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

Contrast 3: picture naming (semantic trained items) vs picture naming (phonological trained items)

Language conditionPicture naming (semantic trained items)
Control conditionPicture 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

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrastPicture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis classCross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T1
CovariateSubsequent 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↓ R basal ganglia
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrastPicture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)Aphasia T2 vs T1
CovariateΔ 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent11 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

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrastPicture naming (trained items) vs picture naming (untrained items)
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 notesTrained items improved more than untrained items
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent11 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

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrastPicture naming (semantic trained items) vs picture naming (phonological trained items)
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 notesNo differential effects for semantic vs phonological trained items
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent11 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

Voxelwise analysis 5

First level contrastPicture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis classCross-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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↑ R IFG pars triangularis
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 6

First level contrastPicture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 notesPhonological patients showed more improvement on trained items
Type of analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent11 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

Voxelwise analysis 7

First level contrastPicture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
Findings↑ L basal ganglia
Findings notes

Voxelwise analysis 8

First level contrastPicture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisVoxelwise
Search volumeWhole brain
Correction for multiple comparisonsClusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
SoftwareSPM8
Voxelwise p.01
Cluster extent11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details
FindingsNone
Findings notes

Notes

Excluded analyses

 

Benjamin et al. (2014)

Reference

AuthorsBenjamin ML, Towler S, Garcia A, Park H, Sudhyadhom A, Harnish SM, McGregor KM, Zlatar Z, Reilly JJ, Rosenbek JC, Gonzalez LJ, Crosson B
TitleA behavioral manipulation engages right frontal cortex during aphasia therapy
ReferenceNeurorehabil Neural Repair 2014; 28: 545-553
PMID24407914
DOI10.1177/1545968313517754

Participants

LanguageUS English
Inclusion criteria"at least minimal evidence of non-fluent output"; lesion including precentral gyrus or underlying white matter
Number of individuals with aphasia14
Number of control participants0
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 evaluationWAB, BNT, PPVT
Aphasia severityIntention group: AQ mean 65.5 ± 8.3; control group: AQ mean 71.9 ± 11.9
Aphasia typeIntention 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 typeMixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?Lesion overlay
Lesion extentNot stated
Lesion locationL MCA, extending frontally at least into the precentral gyrus or underlying white matter
Participants notes

Imaging

ModalityfMRI
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 typeEvent-related
Total images acquirednot 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

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?Yes
ConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All individuals could do?
word generationWord (overt)60UnknownUnknown
restNoneimplicit baselineN/AN/A
Conditions notes

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?Yes

Contrast 1: word generation vs rest

Language conditionWord generation
Control conditionRest
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 notesContrast not described explicitly but there is only one possible contrast

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrastWord generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal 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 analysisRegions of interest (ROI)
ROI typeLaterality 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 comparisonsNo correction
Statistical details
Findings↓ LI (frontal)
Findings notesLaterality shift for lateral frontal LI, not medial frontal LI

ROI analysis 2

First level contrastWord generation vs rest
Analysis classLongitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)Aphasia with intention treatment (n = 6) T3 vs T1
Covariate
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?Yes