Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Supplementary Table S16: Complete coding of all included studies

Weiller et al. (1995)

Reference

Authors	Weiller C, Isensee C, Rijntjes M, Huber W, Müller S, Bier D, Dutschka K, Woods RP, Noth J, Diener HC
Title	Recovery from Wernicke's aphasia: a positron emission tomographic study
Reference	Ann Neurol 1995; 37: 723-732
PMID	7778845
DOI	10.1002/ana.410370605

Participants

Language	German
Inclusion criteria	Lesion including L pSTG; moderate-to-severe Wernicke's aphasia in the subacute period; now recovered and not aphasic per formal testing; able to perform verb generation task
Number of individuals with aphasia	6
Number of control participants	6
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No (mean 58 years, range 50-66 years; controls were younger: mean 35 years; range 27-50 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 6; females: 0)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 6; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (range 5-117 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	AAT
Aphasia severity	Recovered; not aphasic per formal testing
Aphasia type	Recovered, but all had moderate-severe Wernicke's aphasia in the subacute period
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	Posterior L MCA infarct, lesion to the L posterior STG usually extending to MTG and AG
Participants notes	6 patients were selected from a database of 600 carefully documented cases

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (CTI ECAT 953/15)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	6
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (axial; field of view = 5.4 cm; perisylvian only)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
verb generation	Multiple words (covert)	2	Yes	Yes
pseudoword repetition	Multiple words (covert)	2	Yes	Yes
rest	None	2	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Auditory presentation; pre-scan behavioral data reported

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

Contrast 1: verb generation vs rest

Language condition	Verb generation
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Yes
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	L posterior temporal, IFG and ventral precentral gyrus, much smaller activations in the R hemisphere
Contrast notes	—

Contrast 2: pseudoword repetition vs rest

Language condition	Pseudoword repetition
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	L posterior temporal only; similar but less extensive activation in the R hemisphere
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Verb generation vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	In practice trials, patients produced 1.5 words on average per prompt, not all of which were verbs, while controls 2.3 words on average per prompt, almost all of which were verbs
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Perisylvian
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	SPM
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 729 (the word "significant" is used)
Findings	↑ R IFG ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
Findings notes	Based more on Figure 2 than the text

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Pseudoword repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear similar
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	All participants are reported to have had no difficulties in performing the repetition task
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Perisylvian
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	SPM
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 729 (the word "significant" is used)
Findings	↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R IFG ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
Findings notes	Based more on Figure 2 than the text

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Belin et al. (1996)

Reference

Authors	Belin P, Van Eeckhout P, Zilbovicius M, Remy P, François C, Guillaume S, Chain F, Rancurel G, Samson Y
Title	Recovery from nonfluent aphasia after melodic intonation therapy: a PET study
Reference	Neurology 1996; 47: 1504-1511
PMID	8960735
DOI	10.1212/wnl.47.6.1504

Participants

Language	French
Inclusion criteria	MCA; persistent severe non-fluent aphasia followed by marked improvement with MIT
Number of individuals with aphasia	7
Number of control participants	0
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 49.7 years, range 40-58 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 7; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (range 15-149 months; including MIT for the most recent 1-108 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity and type
Language evaluation	BDAE
Aphasia severity	Persistent severe non-fluent aphasia followed by marked improvement with MIT
Aphasia type	5 global, 2 Broca's
First stroke only?	Not stated
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Not stated, but note that hypoperfusion greatly exceeded the infarct in all but 1 patient
Lesion location	L MCA; 2 also had ACA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (CEA LETI-TTV03)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	4
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (7 transaxial slices 12 mm apart)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
word repetition with MIT-like intonation	Word (overt)	1	Yes	Unknown
word repetition	Word (overt)	1	Yes	Unknown
listening to words	None	1	N/A	N/A
rest	None	1	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

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

Language condition	Word repetition with MIT-like intonation
Control condition	Word repetition
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	No, by design
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	More words were correctly repeated with MIT (16.3 ± 8) than without (12.4 ± 8; p < 0.03)
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	N/A
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	N/A
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	N/A
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Word repetition with MIT-like intonation vs word repetition
Analysis class	Cross-sectional performance-defined conditions
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, by design
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	More words were correctly repeated with MIT (16.3 ± 8) than without (12.4 ± 8; p < 0.03)
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	18
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L Broca's area; (2) L prefrontal; (3) L sensorimotor mouth; (4) L parietal; (5) L Wernicke's area; (6) L Heschl's gyrus; (7) L anterior STG; (8) L MTG; (9) L temporal pole; (10-18) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images; activation quantified as mean rCBF, not including any intersection of the infarct with the ROI
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Three left hemisphere ROIs were excluded (3, 6, 9) because they were completely infarcted in 4 or more patients
Findings	↑ L IFG ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ R posterior STG
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

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

 

Ohyama et al. (1996)

Reference

Authors	Ohyama M, Senda M, Kitamura S, Ishii K, Mishina M, Terashi A
Title	Role of the nondominant hemisphere and undamaged area during word repetition in poststroke aphasics: a PET activation study
Reference	Stroke 1996; 27: 897-903
PMID	8623110
DOI	10.1161/01.str.27.5.897

Participants

Language	Japanese
Inclusion criteria	Able to repeat single words
Number of individuals with aphasia	16
Number of control participants	6
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 56.6 ± 11.8 years, range 38-75 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 12; females: 4)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 16; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	No* (moderate limitation) (mean 15.1 ± 16.7 months, range 1.1-50.3 months; a mix of subacute and chronic participants; 8 of each)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	WAB
Aphasia severity	AQ mean 74.3 ± 12.2, range 53.8-92.4
Aphasia type	6 anomic, 4 atypical, 4 mild Broca's, 1 mild Wernicke's, 1 transcortical sensory; alternately: 10 fluent, 6 non-fluent
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Extent and location
Lesion extent	Mean 33.9 ± 26.3 cc, range 8.1-113.2 cc
Lesion location	L perisylvian
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Headtome IV tomograph)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	6
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	No (91 mm field of view; coverage limitations not stated)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	No (lesion impact not addressed)
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
word repetition	Word (overt)	2	Yes	Yes
counting	Multiple words (overt)	2	Yes	Yes
rest	None	2	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Patients 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 condition	Word repetition
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	No
Control activation notes	Bilateral auditory and motor activations are prominent, only slightly L-lateralized
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No (see specific limitation(s) below)

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Word repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Some of the patients made a few errors, so as a group they may have been less accurate than controls
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around control peaks
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	The rCBF increase in R PIF was also significant at p < 0.005 for nonfluent patients with Fisher's protected least-significant difference
Findings	↑ R IFG ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Word repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia fluent (n = 10) vs non-fluent (n = 6)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around control peaks
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ R IFG
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 3

First level contrast	Word repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Spontaneous speech (WAB)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around control peaks
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	No correction for multiple comparisons across WAB subscores
Findings	↑ L IFG
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 4

First level contrast	Word repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Comprehension (WAB)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around control peaks
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	This non-significant finding is implied but not stated explicitly
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 5

First level contrast	Word repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Repetition (WAB)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around control peaks
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	This non-significant finding is implied but not stated explicitly
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 6

First level contrast	Word repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Naming (WAB)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Spheres around control peaks
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	This non-significant finding is implied but not stated explicitly
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

Separate analyses for fluent and non-fluent patients revealed essentially similar results

 

Heiss et al. (1997)

Reference

Authors	Heiss WD, Kessler J, Karbe H, Fink GR, Pawlik G
Title	Speech-induced cerebral metabolic activation reflects recovery from aphasia
Reference	J Neurol Sci 1997; 145: 213-217
PMID	9094051
DOI	10.1016/s0022-510x(96)00252-3

Participants

Language	German
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	6
Number of control participants	6
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (range 33-66 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 4; females: 2)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 6; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (T1: ~4 weeks; T2: ~12-18 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity only
Language evaluation	Verbal repetition, confrontation naming, oral and written comprehension, reading abilities, TT, phonemic fluency, clinical impression, family interview
Aphasia severity	T1: TT range 37-48; T2: TT range 3-39 (1 missing)
Aphasia type	T1: 5 global, 1 Wernicke's; T2: not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Range 27.2-133.2 cc
Lesion location	L MCA; 5 patients had superior temporal damage and 1 had subcortical damage underlying posterior superior temporal cortex
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCMRgl)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—recovery
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: ~4 weeks; T2: ~12-18 months
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Not stated
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens ECAT EXACT HR)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	2
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	N/A—no intersubject normalization
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

No (no information about repetition rate, or whether repetition was overt or covert)

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
word repetition	Word (overt)	1	Unknown	Unknown
rest	None	1	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

Contrast 1: word repetition vs rest

Language condition	Word repetition
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	No
Control activation notes	The only control data is extent of activation and mean signal increase in L and R superior temporal cortex; both of these measures were slightly L-lateralized
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Word repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	(Aphasia with good recovery (n = 3) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with poor recovery (n = 3) T2 vs T1)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (TT not optimal measure of overall language function)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	not stated
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative generalization across individuals on pp. 214-6
Findings	↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
Findings notes	The consistent aspects of the findings were that there was an emergence of L posterior temporal activation in patients with better recovery, and R posterior temporal activation in patients with worse recovery

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Word repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	(Aphasia with good recovery (n = 3) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with poor recovery (n = 3) T2 vs T1)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (TT not optimal measure of overall language function)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L superior temporal cortex; (2) R superior temporal cortex
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images; activation quantified in terms of extent exceeding 10% signal change, and mean % increase over the activation
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative generalization across individuals on pp. 214, 216
Findings	↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ L Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Karbe et al. (1998)

Reference

Authors	Karbe H, Thiel A, Weber-Luxenburger G, Herholz K, Kessler J, Heiss WD
Title	Brain plasticity in poststroke aphasia: what is the contribution of the right hemisphere?
Reference	Brain Lang 1998; 64: 215-230
PMID	9710490
DOI	10.1006/brln.1998.1961

Participants

Language	German
Inclusion criteria	MCA; able to repeat single words
Number of individuals with aphasia	12
Number of control participants	10
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No (mean 57 years, range 34-78 years; controls not matched for age)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 7; females: 5; stated to be not matched, but difference not significant)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 12; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (T1: mean 24 ± 11 days, ~3-4 weeks; T2: mean 19 ± 2 months, > 1 year)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity and type
Language evaluation	TT
Aphasia severity	T1: 9 severe; 2 mild; 1 not stated; TT range 3-47 errors; T2: not stated
Aphasia type	T1: 8 global, 3 anomic, 1 Wernicke's; T2: not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Extent and location
Lesion extent	Range 2-133 cc
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	Only 7 of the 12 patients took part at T2

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCMRgl)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—recovery
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: mean 24 ± 11 days, ~3-4 weeks; T2: mean 19 ± 2 months, > 1 year
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Not stated
Is the scanner described?	Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No* (moderate limitation) (activation and control images not acquired on the same day; number of acquisitions not clearly described)
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	8
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	N/A—no intersubject normalization
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
word repetition	Word (overt)	4 (?)	Unknown	Unknown
rest	None	4 (?)	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Inability 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 condition	Word repetition
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	No
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	No
Control activation notes	ROIs only; negligible evidence of lateralization
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Word repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia T1 vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	8
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG; (2) L STG/HG; (3) L SMA; (4) L ventral precentral; (5-8) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 219, but only the L SMA comparison is explicitly quantified
Findings	↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L posterior STG ↓ L Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Word repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) T1 (n = 7)
Covariate	TT T1
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (TT not optimal measure of overall language function)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	8
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG; (2) L STG/HG; (3) L SMA; (4) L ventral precentral; (5-8) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 3

First level contrast	Word repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) T2 (n = 7)
Covariate	TT T2
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (TT not optimal measure of overall language function)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	8
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG; (2) L STG/HG; (3) L SMA; (4) L ventral precentral; (5-8) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	More activation in patients with more severe aphasia per TT

ROI analysis 4

First level contrast	Word repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) (n = 7) T2 vs T1
Covariate	Subsequent outcome (T2) TT
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	No (the logic behind correlating activation changes and language outcome is unclear; TT not optimal measure of overall language function)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	L STG/HG
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L posterior STG ↑ L Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	Increase in activation for repetition was correlated with better aphasia outcome per TT

ROI analysis 5

First level contrast	Word repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) T2 (n = 7)
Covariate	Previous Δ (T2 vs T1) activation in L STG/HG
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	No (logically problematic because patients with less severe initial aphasia would also be expected to show little L temporal increase, but would not be expected to show R temporal recruitment)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	4
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) R IFG; (2) R STG/HG; (3) R SMA; (4) R ventral precentral
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ R IFG ↓ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	Patients with more increase in L STG/HG activation showed less activation of R hemisphere regions at T2

Notes

Excluded analyses

The "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

Authors	Cao Y, Vikingstad EM, George KP, Johnson AF, Welch KM
Title	Cortical language activation in stroke patients recovering from aphasia with functional MRI
Reference	Stroke 1999; 30: 2331-2340
PMID	10548667
DOI	10.1161/01.str.30.11.2331

Participants

Language	US English
Inclusion criteria	Aphasia with significant recovery over months to years (ADPASS > 70th percentile)
Number of individuals with aphasia	6 (plus 2 excluded: 1 unable to reliably describe performance post-scan; 1 due to head motion)
Number of control participants	37
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (range 20-56 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 1; females: 5)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 6; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (range 5-32 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity and type
Language evaluation	ADP
Aphasia severity	ADPASS percentile range 73-99
Aphasia type	3 anomic, 1 conduction, 1 recovered, 1 transcortical sensory
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Extents are reported in three dimensions
Lesion location	4 L MCA, 2 L ICA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Magnex Scientific 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	Block
Total images acquired	40
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (axial, perisylvian only)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	No (first level cross-correlation analysis unclear)
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	N/A—no intersubject normalization
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
picture naming	Word (covert)	4	Yes	Yes
viewing nonsense drawings	None	4	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

Contrast 1: picture naming vs viewing nonsense drawings

Language condition	Picture naming
Control condition	Viewing nonsense drawings
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	Insufficient data to assess the control activation pattern
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Picture naming vs viewing nonsense drawings
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	6
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG and MFG; (2) L pSTG, AG and SMG; (3) R IFG and MFG; (4) R pSTG, AG and SMG; (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-4) individual anatomical images; activation quantified in terms of extent
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ R IFG ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R supramarginal gyrus ↑ R angular gyrus ↑ R posterior STG ↓ LI (frontal) ↓ LI (temporal)
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Picture naming vs viewing nonsense drawings
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Picture naming (outside scanner)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	6
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG and MFG; (2) L pSTG, AG and SMG; (3) R IFG and MFG; (4) R pSTG, AG and SMG; (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	(1-4) individual anatomical images; activation quantified in terms of extent
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ LI (frontal)
Findings notes	—

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

Authors	Heiss WD, Kessler J, Thiel A, Ghaemi M, Karbe H
Title	Differential capacity of left and right hemispheric areas for compensation of poststroke aphasia
Reference	Ann Neurol 1999; 45: 430-438
PMID	10211466
DOI	10.1002/1531-8249(199904)45:4<430::aid-ana3>3.0.co;2-p

Participants

Language	German
Inclusion criteria	AAT repetition ≥ 50
Number of individuals with aphasia	23
Number of control participants	11
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 56 ± 12 years, range 31-77 years; assume patient's age of 5.6 years is a typo for 56 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 15; females: 8)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 23; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (T1: ~2 weeks; T2: ~8 weeks)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity and type
Language evaluation	AAT, phonemic fluency
Aphasia severity	T1: subcortical: TT median 8 errors, range 0-17 errors; frontal: TT median 21 errors, range 4-40 errors; temporal: TT median 39 errors, range 1-47 errors; T2: subcortical: TT median 1 error, range 0-14 errors; frontal: TT median 8 errors, range 0-34; temporal: TT median 34 errors, range 0-44 errors
Aphasia type	T1: 6 Wernicke's, 5 Broca's, 5 residual aphasia, 4 anomic, 2 transcortical sensory, 1 conduction; T2: not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Extent and location
Lesion extent	Range 4.3-154.3 cc (probably; units not stated)
Lesion location	L MCA; 9 subcortical, 7 frontal, 7 temporal
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—recovery
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: ~2 weeks; T2: ~8 weeks
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Not stated
Is the scanner described?	Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	8
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	N/A—no intersubject normalization
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
noun repetition	Word (overt)	4	Unknown	Unknown
rest	None	4	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Inclusion 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 condition	Noun repetition
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	L frontal and bilateral temporal
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with subcortical damage (n = 9) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ L mid temporal ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with frontal damage (n = 7) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ L posterior STG ↑ L mid temporal ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 3

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage (n = 7) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R mid temporal ↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 4

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage T1 (n = 7) vs with subcortical damage T1 (n = 9)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L posterior STG ↓ R IFG pars opercularis ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R mid temporal
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 5

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage T1 (n = 7) vs with frontal damage T1 (n = 7)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ R IFG pars opercularis ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R mid temporal
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 6

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage T2 (n = 7) vs with subcortical damage T2 (n = 9)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L posterior STG ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 7

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage T2 (n = 7) vs with frontal damage T2 (n = 7)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L posterior STG ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 8

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with subcortical damage T1 (n = 9) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ R IFG pars opercularis ↓ L IFG ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L Heschl's gyrus ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 9

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with frontal damage T1 (n = 7) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ R IFG pars opercularis ↓ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ L Heschl's gyrus ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 10

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage T1 (n = 7) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434; L IFG pars opercularis noted as different in text despite being significant in both groups
Findings	↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L posterior STG ↓ L Heschl's gyrus ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ R mid temporal
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 11

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with subcortical damage T2 (n = 9) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↓ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 12

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with frontal damage T2 (n = 7) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↓ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 13

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage T2 (n = 7) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 434
Findings	↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L posterior STG ↓ L Heschl's gyrus ↓ L mid temporal ↓ R posterior STG ↓ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 14

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with subcortical or frontal damage and good recovery (n = 11) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on pp. 434-5
Findings	↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L Heschl's gyrus ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 15

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with subcortical or frontal damage and poor recovery (n = 5) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on pp. 434-5
Findings	↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 16

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with subcortical and frontal damage and good recovery T1 (n = 11) vs with subcortical and frontal damage and poor recovery T1 (n = 5)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 435
Findings	↑ L posterior STG ↑ L mid temporal
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 17

First level contrast	Noun repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with subcortical and frontal damage and good recovery T2 (n = 11) vs with subcortical and frontal damage and poor recovery T2 (n = 5)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars opercularis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L ventral precentral gyrus; (4) L Heschl's gyrus; (5) L temporal plane (posterior to HG, coded as posterior STG); (6) L posterior STG (coded as mid STG per Fig. 2); (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 435
Findings	↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L posterior STG ↑ L Heschl's gyrus ↑ L mid temporal ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Kessler et al. (2000)

Reference

Authors	Kessler J, Thiel A, Karbe H, Heiss WD
Title	Piracetam improves activated blood flow and facilitates rehabilitation of poststroke aphasic patients
Reference	Stroke 2000; 31: 2112-2116
PMID	10978039
DOI	10.1161/01.str.31.9.2112

Participants

Language	German
Inclusion criteria	Mild to moderate aphasia on TT; at least 50 out of 150 on AAT repetition
Number of individuals with aphasia	24
Number of control participants	0
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (piracetam group: mean 57.4 ± 13.5 years; placebo group: mean 56.3 ± 10.0 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 13; females: 11)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 24; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (T1: ~2 weeks; T2: ~8 weeks)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity only
Language evaluation	AAT
Aphasia severity	T1: piracetam group: TT 17.16 ± 14.31 errors; placebo group: TT 17.91 ± 15.47 errors; T2: piracetam group: TT 9.66 ± 12.62 errors; placebo group: TT 12.50 ± 16.88 errors
Aphasia type	Not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Location only
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	10 L frontal, 6 L subcortical, 8 L temporal
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—mixed
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: pre-treatment, ~2 weeks post onset; T2: post-treatment, ~8 weeks post onset
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	SLT, 1 hour/day, 5 days/week, 6 weeks; 12 patients received piracetam and 12 received placebo; note that the two groups are not directly compared in any imaging or behavioral analyses
Is the scanner described?	Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	8
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	N/A—no intersubject normalization
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
word repetition	Word (overt)	4	Yes	Yes
rest	None	4	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Inclusion 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 condition	Word repetition
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	No control data are reported or cited, however the same task was used in several previous studies by this group
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Word repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia treated with pirecetam (n = 12) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L BA 44; (2) L BA 45; (3) L ventral PrCG; (4) L HG; (5) L BA 41 and 42; (6) L BA 22; (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars triangularis ↑ L posterior STG ↑ L Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Word repetition vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia treated with placebo (n = 12) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L BA 44; (2) L BA 45; (3) L ventral PrCG; (4) L HG; (5) L BA 41 and 42; (6) L BA 22; (7) L SMA; (8-14) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Individual anatomical images
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Rosen et al. (2000)

Reference

Authors	Rosen HJ, Petersen SE, Linenweber MR, Snyder AZ, White DA, Chapman L, Dromerick AW, Fiez JA, Corbetta M
Title	Neural correlates of recovery from aphasia after damage to left inferior frontal cortex
Reference	Neurology 2000; 55: 1883-1894
PMID	11134389
DOI	10.1212/wnl.55.12.1883

Participants

Language	US English
Inclusion criteria	L IFG, possibly extending to neighboring regions
Number of individuals with aphasia	6
Number of control participants	14
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	Yes (1 participant was reported in a previous case study)
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No (mean 47 years, range 32-72 years; control participants not age-matched)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 3; females: 3)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 6; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (range 0.5-7.6 years)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity and type
Language evaluation	WAB (except BDAE in 1 patient), reading pseudowords, word stem completion, verb generation, reading single words
Aphasia severity	AQ range 74-97 (missing in 1 patient)
Aphasia type	3 anomic, 1 Broca's, 1 not stated, 1 recovered
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Range 10.7-117.5 cc
Lesion location	L IFG, extending to neighboring areas in most cases
Participants notes	Of the 14 controls, 6 were studied with PET and 8 with fMRI

Imaging

Modality	PET and fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens 961 EXACT HR; Siemens Vision 1.5 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No (fMRI timing description is inconsistent)
Design type	Mixed
Total images acquired	PET: 10; fMRI: 384-768
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	1 patient scanned on different PET scanner, and not scanned with fMRI; controls had different fMRI sequence to patients

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
word stem completion (PET)	Word (overt)	4	Yes	Yes
reading pseudowords aloud (PET)	Word (overt)	4	Yes	No
rest (PET)	None	2	N/A	N/A
word stem completion (fMRI)	Word (covert)	15-30 (?)	Yes	Yes
rest (fMRI)	None	15-30 (?)	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Pseudoword reading condition not analyzed in this paper

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

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

Language condition	Word stem completion (PET)
Control condition	Rest (PET)
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	L IFG, L ITG, L anterior fusiform
Contrast notes	—

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

Language condition	Word stem completion (fMRI)
Control condition	Rest (fMRI)
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	L IFG, L intraparietal sulcus
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Word stem completion (PET) vs rest (PET)
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, matched
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Unclear or not stated
Software	not stated
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Correction for multiple comparisons unclear; there may be circularity in only correcting for the number of regions that seemed to show differences
Findings	↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R IFG ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ L IFG
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Word stem completion (fMRI) vs rest (fMRI)
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia (n = 5) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	not stated
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 1888
Findings	↑ R IFG ↓ L IFG
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Word stem completion (fMRI) vs rest (fMRI)
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia (n = 5) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) R IFG; (2) SMA
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Not stated but seem to be functional
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Possibly circular because not clear how ROIs defined
Findings	↑ R IFG
Findings notes	—

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

Authors	Blasi V, Young AC, Tansy AP, Petersen SE, Snyder AZ, Corbetta M
Title	Word retrieval learning modulates right frontal cortex in patients with left frontal damage
Reference	Neuron 2002; 36: 159-170
PMID	12367514
DOI	10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00936-4

Participants

Language	US English
Inclusion criteria	L IFG, possibly extending to neighboring regions
Number of individuals with aphasia	8
Number of control participants	14
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No (mean 48.6 years; patients and controls not closely matched for age, unclear if difference significant)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 2; females: 6)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 8; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	No (> 6 months; actual TPO not stated)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	WAB or BDAE
Aphasia severity	AQ range 66.5-89.0 in 6 participants, BDAE aphasia severity of 4 in 1 participant, no formal evaluation in 1 participant
Aphasia type	3 anomic, 3 transcortical motor, 1 Broca's, 1 not stated; most were Broca's or global acutely
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L IFG and operculum, extending to adjacent cortex and white matter in several cases
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens Vision 1.5 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	1024
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	No (not described)
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
word stem completion (novel items)	Word (covert)	196	Yes	Unknown
word stem completion (repeated items)	Word (covert)	196	Yes	Unknown
rest	None	implicit baseline	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Novel 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 condition	Word stem completion (novel items)
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	Activation of language areas but also other areas; frontal activation is somewhat lateralized
Contrast notes	—

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

Language condition	Word stem completion (novel items)
Control condition	Word stem completion (repeated items)
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Yes, matched
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	No, different
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	No whole brain analysis of this contrast, but somewhat lateralized in the sense that L but not R frontal areas showed a learning effect
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No** (major limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Word stem completion (novel items) vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	No, different
Behavioral data notes	Covert task but overt data acquired separately; patients less accurate and slower than controls
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Unclear or not stated
Software	not stated
Voxelwise p	~.001 (z > 3)
Cluster extent	45 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	Monte Carlo analysis not described in detail; rather than fitting a HRF, the authors looked at the shape of the signal in the 8 volumes following each stimulus
Findings	↑ R IFG pars opercularis ↑ R IFG pars triangularis ↑ R insula ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R dorsal precentral ↓ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
Findings notes	Labels based on coordinates reported

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Word stem completion (novel items) vs word stem completion (repeated items)
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, matched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, matched
Behavioral data notes	Covert task but overt data acquired separately; no interaction of group by practice for accuracy or RT
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	14
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L dorsal IFG; (2) L ventral IFG; (3) R MFG; (4) L anterior fusiform; (5) R anterior fusiform; (6) R posterior fusiform; (7) R lateral occipital; (8) R lateral cerebellum; (9) L SMA; (10) R dorsal IFG; (11) R posterior fusiform; (12) R lateral occipital; (13) R lingual; (14) L MTG
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Regions that were active for the main effect of word stem completion (irrespective of practice) in either group and modulated by practice in that group
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Circular because ROIs defined in one group or the other; the L ROIs showed repetition suppression in controls but not in patients, and this difference is interpreted by the authors, but not supported statistically
Findings	↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↓ L IFG ↓ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Findings notes	Labels based on coordinates reported

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

Authors	Leff A, Crinion J, Scott S, Turkheimer F, Howard D, Wise R
Title	A physiological change in the homotopic cortex following left posterior temporal lobe infarction
Reference	Ann Neurol 2002; 51: 553-558
PMID	12112100
DOI	10.1002/ana.10181

Participants

Language	UK English
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	15
Number of control participants	8
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (range 43-76 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 11; females: 4)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 11; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (range 5-76 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Not at all
Language evaluation	PPT (Dutch), British picture vocabulary scale, Action for Dysphasic Adults lexical decision battery, auditory maximal pairs (an offline phoneme discrimination test)
Aphasia severity	Not stated
Aphasia type	Not stated, but all 6 patients with pSTS damage had single word comprehension deficits acutely
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Extent and location
Lesion extent	Range 0.5-14% of total brain volume
Lesion location	9 L but sparing pSTS, 6 L including pSTS
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR++/966)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	16
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
listening to words at 10 wpm	None	2	N/A	N/A
listening to words at 35 wpm	None	2	N/A	N/A
listening to words at 55 wpm	None	2	N/A	N/A
listening to words at 70 wpm	None	2	N/A	N/A
listening to words at 85 wpm	None	2	N/A	N/A
listening to words at 95 wpm	None	2	N/A	N/A
listening to words at 115 wpm	None	2	N/A	N/A
listening to words at 130 wpm	None	2	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

Contrast 1: higher word rates vs lower word rates

Language condition	Higher word rates
Control condition	Lower word rates
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	Control activation is bilateral in primary auditory cortex and the lateral STG (Fig. 1, labels 1 and 2), but there is a left-lateralized activation in the pSTS (label 3); the scatter plots in Fig. 1 show activity-word rate curves for peak pSTS voxels in individual subjects; slopes were steeper in the left hemisphere (p < 0.05), however, the identification of these voxels is not described in sufficient detail (i.e. what was the search region?)
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Higher word rates vs lower word rates
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with pSTS damage (n = 6) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	SPM99
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 555; a FWE-corrected SPM is reported of the relationship in the 6 patients with L pSTS damage (Fig. 2), however it is masked in a way that is not explained (see figure caption), and there is no direct comparison between patients with L pSTS damage and controls
Findings	↑ R posterior STS
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Higher word rates vs lower word rates
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with pSTS (n = 6) damage vs without pSTS damage (n = 9)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	SPM99
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 555; a FWE-corrected SPM is reported of the relationship in the 6 patients with L pSTS damage (Fig. 2), however it is masked in a way that is not explained (see figure caption), and there is no direct comparison between patients with L pSTS damage and patients with R pSTS damage
Findings	↑ R posterior STS
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Higher word rates vs lower word rates
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with pSTS damage (n = 6) vs control (n = 8)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	R pSTS
How are the ROI(s) defined?	The peak voxel for the contrast in the R pSTS from each subject's individual analysis, but the search region is not stated
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	The controls and patients without pSTS damage were combined, however it is stated in the caption to Figure 2 that the patients with pSTS damage were significantly different to both
Findings	↑ R posterior STS
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Higher word rates vs lower word rates
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with pSTS damage (n = 6) vs aphasia without pSTS damage (n = 9)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	R pSTS
How are the ROI(s) defined?	The peak voxel for the contrast in the R pSTS from each subject's individual analysis, but the search region is not stated
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	The controls and patients without pSTS damage were combined, however it is stated in the caption to Figure 2 that the patients with pSTS damage were significantly different to both
Findings	↑ R posterior STS
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Blank et al. (2003)

Reference

Authors	Blank SC, Bird H, Turkheimer F, Wise RJ
Title	Speech production after stroke: the role of the right pars opercularis
Reference	Ann Neurol 2003; 54: 310-320
PMID	12953263
DOI	10.1002/ana.10656

Participants

Language	UK English
Inclusion criteria	Initial non-fluent aphasia due to anterior perisylvian lesion; subsequently recovered the ability to speak in sentences; patients were divided into those with and without damage to the IFG pars opercularis (POp+: n = 7; POp-: n = 7)
Number of individuals with aphasia	14
Number of control participants	12
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (POp+: median 50 years, range 36-72 years; POp-: median 61 years, range 39-70 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 8; females: 6)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 14; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (POp+: median 39 months, range 19-134 months; POp-: median 17 months, range 6-240 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Type only
Language evaluation	CAT, QPA
Aphasia severity	Not stated
Aphasia type	POp+: 4 non-fluent but not agrammatic, 2 agrammatic, 1 recovered; POp-: 4 non-fluent but not agrammatic, 3 recovered
First stroke only?	No
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L frontal, occasionally extending into temporal
Participants notes	8 of 12 controls included in Blank et al. (2002)

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR++ (966))
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	15 (patients); 12 (controls)
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
propositional speech production	Sentence (overt)	aphasia: 5; control: 4	Yes	Yes
counting	Multiple words (overt)	aphasia: 5; control: 4	Yes	Yes
rest	None	aphasia: 5; control: 4	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Alertness 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 condition	Propositional speech production
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	Much bilateral activation due to overt speech but pars opercularis and supratemporal plane L-lateralized
Contrast notes	—

Contrast 2: propositional speech production vs counting

Language condition	Propositional speech production
Control condition	Counting
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	Extrasylvian; somewhat L-lateralized
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Propositional speech production vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Small volume correction
Software	SPM99
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes	No voxels survived FWE correction without SVC

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Propositional speech production vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia without IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Small volume correction
Software	SPM99
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ R IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrast	Propositional speech production vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs without IFG POp damage (n = 7)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Small volume correction
Software	SPM99
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	Patients with L IFG POp damage showed numerically more signal in the R IFG POp

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrast	Propositional speech production vs counting
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Small volume correction
Software	SPM99
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 5

First level contrast	Propositional speech production vs counting
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia without IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Small volume correction
Software	SPM99
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 6

First level contrast	Propositional speech production vs counting
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7) vs without IFG POp damage (n = 7)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	Word rates not reported, but offline speech sample differed
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Small volume correction
Software	SPM99
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05 with SVC in R pars opercularis
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Propositional speech production vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7)
Covariate	Speech rate during scan
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	R IFG pars opercularis
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Defined by flipping L IFG pars opercularis activation in controls
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Propositional speech production vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia without IFG POp damage (n = 7)
Covariate	Speech rate during scan
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	R IFG pars opercularis
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Defined by flipping L IFG pars opercularis activation in controls
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 3

First level contrast	Propositional speech production vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia with IFG POp damage (n = 7)
Covariate	Four different QPA measures
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	R IFG pars opercularis
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Defined by flipping L IFG pars opercularis activation in controls
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

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

 

Cardebat et al. (2003)

Reference

Authors	Cardebat D, Démonet JF, De Boissezon X, Marie N, Marié RM, Lambert J, Baron JC, Puel M
Title	Behavioral and neurofunctional changes over time in healthy and aphasic subjects: a PET language activation study
Reference	Stroke 2003; 34: 2900-2906
PMID	14615626
DOI	10.1161/01.str.0000099965.99393.83

Participants

Language	French
Inclusion criteria	No severe aphasia; no leukoaraiosis
Number of individuals with aphasia	8
Number of control participants	6
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 58.4 ± 11.9 years, range 37-73 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 7; females: 1)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 8; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	No* (moderate limitation) (T1: 58 ± 35 days, range 11-113 days; T2: 11.7 ± 1.6 months, range 320-460 days; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Not at all
Language evaluation	Not stated
Aphasia severity	Not stated
Aphasia type	T1: some prominent symptoms are listed for each patient; T2: not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Mixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	4 L subcortical, 2 L prerolandic, 2 L postrolandic
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—recovery
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: 58 ± 35 days, range 11-113 days; T2: 11.7 ± 1.6 months, range 320-460 days; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Not stated
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens ECAT HR+)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	6
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	No (lesion impact not addressed)
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
word generation	Word (overt)	4	Yes	Unknown
rest	None	2	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Participants 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 condition	Word generation
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	No
Control activation notes	Bilateral fronto-temporal and some other regions per text
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Word generation vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM99
Voxelwise p	.05
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	Nature of inclusive masks unclear
Findings	↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L somato-motor ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ L cerebellum ↑ R IFG pars opercularis ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R somato-motor ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ R cerebellum
Findings notes	Based on Figure 2

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Word generation vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ word generation accuracy
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Accuracy is covariate
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM99
Voxelwise p	.001
Cluster extent	100 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	Nature of inclusive masks unclear
Findings	↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ R cerebellum ↓ L occipital ↓ L hippocampus/MTL ↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ R occipital
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

Aphasia 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

Authors	Sharp DJ, Scott SK, Wise RJ
Title	Retrieving meaning after temporal lobe infarction: the role of the basal language area
Reference	Ann Neurol 2004; 56: 836-846
PMID	15514975
DOI	10.1002/ana.20294

Participants

Language	UK English
Inclusion criteria	Lesion in vicinity of L STG; no extensive frontal damage; no inferior temporal damage; able to perform tasks
Number of individuals with aphasia	9
Number of control participants	18
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (median 58 years, range 39-72 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 8; females: 1)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 9; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (mean 45 months, range 14-145 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity only
Language evaluation	Subtests from CAT, subtests from PALPA, Action for dysphasic adults, TROG, PPT
Aphasia severity	Mild
Aphasia type	Not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	Lesion in vicinity of L STG; no extensive frontal damage; no inferior temporal damage
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens HR++ 966)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	16
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
semantic decision	Word (overt)	aphasia: 8; control: 4	Yes	Yes
syllable count decision	Word (overt)	aphasia: 8; control: 4	Yes	Yes
semantic decision (noise vocoded) (control only)	Word (overt)	4 (control)	Yes	Yes
syllable count decision (noise vocoded) (control only)	Word (overt)	4 (control)	Yes	Yes

Conditions notes

Seems 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 condition	Semantic decision
Control condition	Syllable count decision
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	No, different
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	No, different
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	The control data provided also include the noise vocoded conditions; only ventral temporal activations are shown, which are L-lateralized
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs syllable count decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control (clear speech)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, matched
Behavioral data notes	Interaction of group by task not reported for accuracy
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Small volume correction
Software	SPM99
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05 with SVC in fusiform gyri, temporal poles, L IFG, L orbitofrontal and L SFG
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs syllable count decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Semantic decision accuracy
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Accuracy is covariate
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Small volume correction
Software	SPM99
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05 with SVC in fusiform gyri, temporal poles, L IFG, L orbitofrontal and L SFG
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Fixed effects; this analysis is not clearly described
Findings	↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Findings notes	Patients who were more accurate had more activity in R anterior fusiform gyrus

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs syllable count decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control (clear speech)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, matched
Behavioral data notes	Interaction of group by task not reported for accuracy
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	L fusiform gyrus
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Probabilistic brain atlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs syllable count decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control (noise vocoded)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, but attempt made
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, matched
Behavioral data notes	Patients were more accurate on semantic decisions than syllable decisions, whereas controls were less accurate on noise vocoded semantic decisions than clear syllable decisions (which were the baseline for this analysis)
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	L fusiform gyrus
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Probabilistic brain atlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	This analysis suggests that the difference between groups in the L fusiform gyrus disappears when the controls perform a semantic task that is similarly challenging

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

Authors	Zahn R, Drews E, Specht K, Kemeny S, Reith W, Willmes K, Schwarz M, Huber W
Title	Recovery of semantic word processing in global aphasia: a functional MRI study
Reference	Cogn Brain Res 2004; 18: 322-336
PMID	14741318
DOI	10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.10.021

Participants

Language	German
Inclusion criteria	Global aphasia in the first three months; some improvement of comprehension within 6-12 months
Number of individuals with aphasia	7
Number of control participants	14
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (range 29-67 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 6; females: 1)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 7; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (range 6 months-4 years)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	AABT, AAT
Aphasia severity	TT percentile range 28-63
Aphasia type	3 global, 2 Broca's, 2 unclassifiable; all had been global initially
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Philips ACS NT Gyroscan 1.5 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No* (moderate limitation) (insufficient blocks per experimental condition (3) because blocks were too long (44 s))
Design type	Block
Total images acquired	198
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	N/A—no intersubject normalization
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
phonetic decision (reversed words vs sounds)	Button press	3	Yes	No
lexical decision (words vs reversed words)	Button press	3	Yes	Yes
semantic decision	Button press	3	Yes	No
rest	None	9	N/A	N/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 condition	Semantic decision
Control condition	Phonetic decision and lexical decision (conjunction)
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Appear similar
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Tasks were matched in controls, but no statistics reported for patients
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Yes
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	L-lateralized frontal activation, as well as temporal and parietal to a lesser extent
Contrast notes	Conjunction of baseline conditions not described in sufficient detail

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs phonetic decision and lexical decision (conjunction)
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, no test
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Relative performance on language and control tasks unclear
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Laterality indi(ces)
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	Language network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	Conjunction analyses not clearly described; in two patients, a different conjunction was used (lexical decision vs phonetic decision & semantic decision vs phonetic decision)
Findings	None
Findings notes	LI > 0 in 12 out of 14 controls and 5 out of 7 patients; no significant difference

Notes

Excluded analyses

Individual patient analyses

 

Crinion & Price (2005)

Reference

Authors	Crinion J, Price CJ
Title	Right anterior superior temporal activation predicts auditory sentence comprehension following aphasic stroke
Reference	Brain 2005; 128: 2858-2871
PMID	16234297
DOI	10.1093/brain/awh659

Participants

Language	UK English
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	17
Number of control participants	18
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 62 ± 2.7 SEM years, range 34-75 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 12; females: 5)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 17; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (range 4-125 months; aphasia with temporal damage (n=8) mean 41 months; aphasia without temporal damage (n=9) mean 48 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	CAT
Aphasia severity	Not stated
Aphasia type	Not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	No (Siemens 1.5 Tesla; model not stated)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No (the calculated duration of the stimuli, the calculated duration of the acquisitions, and the stated duration of the acquisitions yield three different numbers)
Design type	Block
Total images acquired	460
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
listening to narrative speech	None	32	N/A	N/A
listening to reversed speech	None	8	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

A 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 condition	Listening to narrative speech
Control condition	Listening to reversed speech
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Yes
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	Bilateral (L > R) temporal, L IFG and L dorsal precentral
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia without temporal lobe damage (n = 9) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05
Cluster extent	5 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L dorsal precentral ↓ R somato-motor
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 8) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05
Cluster extent	5 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L posterior STS ↓ L mid temporal
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 8) vs without temporal lobe damage (n = 9)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05
Cluster extent	5 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ L mid temporal
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia without temporal lobe damage (n = 9)
Covariate	Sentence comprehension (CAT)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05
Cluster extent	5 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	Conjunction with main effect of story comprehension (details hard to follow); this was a multiple regression also involving patients with temporal lobe damage
Findings	↑ L posterior STS ↑ R mid temporal
Findings notes	Patients with better sentence comprehension had more activation in the L posterior STS and R mid STS

Voxelwise analysis 5

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 8)
Covariate	Sentence comprehension (CAT)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Voxelwise FWE correction and additional arbitrary cluster correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05
Cluster extent	5 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	Conjunction with main effect of story comprehension (details hard to follow); this was a multiple regression also involving patients without temporal lobe damage
Findings	↑ R mid temporal
Findings notes	Patients with better sentence comprehension had more activation in the R mid STS

Complex analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage (n = 8) vs without temporal damage (n = 9)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations were computed between activity in each voxel, and the sentence comprehension measure from the CAT, and were compared between the two aphasia groups, in regions with a main effect of story comprehension. The voxelwise threshold was p < .001, uncorrected for multiple comparisons.
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Activity in the L posterior STS was positively correlated with sentence comprehension in patients without temporal lobe damage, but not in patients with temporal lobe damage

Complex analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia without temporal damage (n = 9) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations were computed between activity in each voxel, and post-scan story recall, and were compared between patients without temporal damage and controls, in regions with a main effect of story comprehension. The threshold was p < 0.05 corrected, plus a minimum cluster size of 5 voxels.
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Complex analysis 3

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage (n = 8) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations were computed between activity in each voxel, and post-scan story recall, and were compared between patients with temporal damage and controls, in regions with a main effect of story comprehension. The threshold was p < 0.05 corrected, plus a minimum cluster size of 5 voxels.
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Complex analysis 4

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage (n = 8) vs without temporal damage (n = 9)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Correlations were computed between activity in each voxel, and post-scan story recall, and were compared between the two aphasia groups, in regions with a main effect of story comprehension. The threshold was p < 0.05 corrected, plus a minimum cluster size of 5 voxels.
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

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

 

de Boissezon et al. (2005)

Reference

Authors	de Boissezon X, Démonet JF, Puel M, Marie N, Raboyeau G, Albucher JF, Chollet F, Cardebat D
Title	Subcortical aphasia: a longitudinal PET study
Reference	Stroke 2005; 36: 1467-1473
PMID	15933252
DOI	10.1161/01.str.0000169947.08972.4f

Participants

Language	French
Inclusion criteria	Subcortical stroke; no severe aphasia
Number of individuals with aphasia	7
Number of control participants	0
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 52.4 ± 13 years, range 31-69 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 7; females: 0)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 7; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	No* (moderate limitation) (T1: mean 53 ± 35 days, range 11-108 days; T2: mean 12.2 ± 1.4 months; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Type only
Language evaluation	Montreal-Toulouse Aphasia Battery
Aphasia severity	Not stated
Aphasia type	T1: 2 Broca's, 2 transcortical sensory, 1 anomic, 1 transcortical motor, 1 Wernicke's; T2: 4 recovered, 1 anomic, 1 transcortical motor; 1 transcortical sensory
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Mixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	5 L non-thalamic subcortical, 2 L thalamic
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—recovery
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: mean 53 ± 35 days, range 11-108 days; T2: mean 12.2 ± 1.4 months; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Not stated
Is the scanner described?	Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR+)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	6
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	No (lesion impact not addressed; minimal due to lesions being small and subcortical)
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
word generation	Word (overt)	4	Yes	Yes
rest	None	2	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Nouns 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 condition	Word generation
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Word generation vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T1
Covariate	Time post onset
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, matched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No significant correlation between time post onset and accuracy
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L orbitofrontal ↑ L anterior temporal ↑ L occipital ↑ L anterior cingulate ↑ L cerebellum ↑ R anterior temporal ↑ R occipital
Findings notes	More activity with longer time post onset; based on coordinates in Table 3a

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Word generation vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T1
Covariate	Word generation accuracy T1
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Accuracy is covariate
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars triangularis ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L precuneus ↑ L Heschl's gyrus ↑ L anterior temporal ↑ R insula ↑ R posterior STG
Findings notes	Based on coordinates in Table 3b

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrast	Word generation vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.001
Cluster extent	100 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	Description of masking unclear, but seems to be inclusively masked with T1, which seems inappropriate
Findings	↑ L insula ↑ L posterior STG ↑ R orbitofrontal ↑ R posterior STG ↑ R cerebellum
Findings notes	Based on coordinates in Table 2

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrast	Word generation vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ word generation accuracy
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Accuracy is covariate
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	20 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L mid temporal ↑ R anterior temporal ↑ R cerebellum
Findings notes	Based on coordinates in Table 3c

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Connor et al. (2006)

Reference

Authors	Connor LT, DeShazo Braby T, Snyder AZ, Lewis C, Blasi V, Corbetta M
Title	Cerebellar activity switches hemispheres with cerebral recovery in aphasia
Reference	Neuropsychologia 2006; 44: 171-177
PMID	16019040
DOI	10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.05.019

Participants

Language	US English
Inclusion criteria	L IFG, possibly extending to neighboring regions
Number of individuals with aphasia	8
Number of control participants	14
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	Yes (re-analysis of data from Blasi et al. (2002))
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No (mean 48.6 years; patients and controls not closely matched for age, unclear if difference significant)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 2; females: 6)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 8; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	No (> 6 months; actual TPO not stated)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	WAB or BDAE
Aphasia severity	AQ range 66.5-89.0 in 6 participants, BDAE aphasia severity of 4 in 1 participant, no formal evaluation in 1 participant
Aphasia type	3 anomic, 3 transcortical motor, 1 Broca's, 1 not stated; most were Broca's or global acutely
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L IFG and operculum, extending to adjacent cortex and white matter in several cases
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens Vision 1.5 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	1024
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
word stem completion (novel items)	Word (covert)	196	Yes	Unknown
word stem completion (repeated items)	Word (covert)	196	Yes	Unknown
rest	None	implicit baseline	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Novel 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 condition	Word stem completion (novel items)
Control condition	Word stem completion (repeated items)
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Yes, matched
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	No, different
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	No whole brain analysis of this contrast, but somewhat lateralized in the sense that L but not R frontal areas showed a learning effect
Contrast notes	The only contrast analyzed in this paper is the "learning" contrast which corresponds to contrast 2 in Blasi et al. (2002)

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Word stem completion (novel items) vs word stem completion (repeated items)
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, matched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, matched
Behavioral data notes	Covert task but overt data acquired separately; no interaction of group by practice for accuracy or RT
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Cerebellum
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	not stated
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 174; Monte Carlo-based thresholding not described; rather than fitting a HRF, the authors looked at the shape of the signal in the 8 volumes following each stimulus
Findings	↑ L cerebellum ↓ R cerebellum
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Word stem completion (novel items) vs word stem completion (repeated items)
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, matched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, matched
Behavioral data notes	Covert task but overt data acquired separately; no interaction of group by practice for accuracy or RT
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	L cerebellum
How are the ROI(s) defined?	L cerebellar region with a learning effect in the patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	Circular because ROIs defined in one group; rather than fitting a HRF, the authors looked at the shape of the signal in the 8 volumes following each stimulus
Findings	↑ L cerebellum
Findings notes	—

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

Authors	Crinion JT, Warburton EA, Lambon-Ralph MA, Howard D, Wise RJ
Title	Listening to narrative speech after aphasic stroke: the role of the left anterior temporal lobe
Reference	Cereb Cortex 2006; 16: 1116-1125
PMID	16251507
DOI	10.1093/cercor/bhj053

Participants

Language	UK English
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	24
Number of control participants	11
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (range 32-85 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 18; females: 6)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 24; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	No (mean 32 months, range 2-204 months; combines subacute and chronic patients)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	CAT (missing in two participants)
Aphasia severity	Not stated
Aphasia type	Not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	6 L but no temporal damage, 9 L temporal damage excluding anterior temporal cortex, 9 L temporal damage including anterior temporal cortex
Participants notes	Results of control participants previously reported in Crinion et al. (2003)

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR++/966 (16 patients and all controls) or GE Advance (8 patients))
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	12-16
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	two different scanners used for patients, but not for controls

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
listening to narrative speech	None	6-8	N/A	N/A
listening to reversed speech	None	6-8	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

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

Language condition	Listening to narrative speech
Control condition	Listening to reversed speech
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Yes
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	11 participants; L-lateralized posterior temporal, bilateral anterior temporal, no frontal
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Voxelwise FWE correction
Software	SPM99
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia without temporal lobe damage (n = 6) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all included patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Voxelwise FWE correction
Software	SPM99
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 18) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all included patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Voxelwise FWE correction
Software	SPM99
Voxelwise p	FWE p < .05
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia with no temporal damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) or posterior temporal damage sparing anterior temporal cortex (n = 13)
Covariate	Auditory sentence comprehension (CAT)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	L ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Activation in the control group
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	Same result obtained with or without excluding one outlier; two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses
Findings	↑ L anterior temporal
Findings notes	More activity in patients with better auditory sentence comprehension

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia with no temporal damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) or posterior temporal damage sparing anterior temporal cortex (n = 13)
Covariate	Time post onset
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	L ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Activation in the control group
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	Two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 3

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage excluding anterior temporal cortex (n = 9) vs with no temporal lobe damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) (n = 4)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	L ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Activation in the control group
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	Two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses
Findings	↓ L anterior temporal
Findings notes	Patients with posterior temporal damage had less signal change

ROI analysis 4

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with temporal damage excluding anterior temporal cortex (n = 9) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	L ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Activation in the control group
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	Circular because ROI defined in one group; two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses
Findings	↓ L anterior temporal
Findings notes	Large difference 2.7 ± 0.8 (patients) vs 6.3 ± 1.4 (controls) makes finding suggestive even in light of the circularity

ROI analysis 5

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia with no temporal damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) or posterior temporal damage sparing anterior temporal cortex (n = 13)
Covariate	Auditory single word comprehension (CAT)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	L ATL
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Activation in the control group
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	Two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses
Findings	None
Findings notes	R = 0.39; p > 0.1; seems to be a clear trend so lack of significance may reflect only lack of power

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Saur et al. (2006)

Reference

Authors	Saur D, Lange R, Baumgaertner A, Schraknepper V, Willmes K, Rijntjes M, Weiller C
Title	Dynamics of language reorganization after stroke
Reference	Brain 2006; 129: 1371-1384
PMID	16638796
DOI	10.1093/brain/awl090

Participants

Language	German
Inclusion criteria	MCA; age < 70 years; able to distinguish forward vs backward speech outside the scanner; no pronounced small vessel disease
Number of individuals with aphasia	14 (plus 4 excluded: 1 health problems; 1 scanner noise; 2 did not tolerate fMRI)
Number of control participants	14
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 51.9 ± 14.2 years, range 16-68 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 11; females: 3)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 12; left: 1; other: 1)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (T1 acute: mean 1.8 days, range 0-4 days; T2 subacute: mean 12.1 days, range 3-16 days; T3 chronic: mean 321 days, range 102-513 days)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	AABT, AAT including TT, analysis of spontaneous speech, CETI, Language Recovery Score (LRS) derived from all these measures plus in-scanner task performance
Aphasia severity	T1: LRS mean 0.44, range 0.11-0.81; 1 mild, 1 mild-moderate, 7 moderate, 3 moderate-severe, 2 severe per AAT; T2: LRS mean 0.71, range 0.33-0.92; 2 recovered, 2 recovered-mild, 2 mild, 3 mild-moderate, 3 moderate, 2 severe per AAT; T3: LRS mean 0.91, range 0.66-1.00; 8 recovered, 2 recovered-mild, 3 mild, 1 moderate per AAT
Aphasia type	T1: 9 non-fluent, 5 fluent; T2: not stated; T3: 6 recovered, 4 minimal language impairment, 3 anomic, 1 global
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L MCA; 4 frontal (2 extending to temporoparietal); 5 temporoparietal (2 extending to subcortical); 4 striatocapsular (2 extending to cortical); 1 frontoparietal
Participants notes	198 patients with aphasia were screened

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—recovery
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1 acute: mean 1.8 days, range 0-4 days; T2 subacute: mean 12.1 days, range 3-16 days; T3 chronic: mean 321 days, range 102-513 days
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Standard SLT throughout the observation period including at least 3 weeks inpatient
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	660
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment	Button press	92	Unknown	No
listening to reversed speech	Button press	92	Yes	Unknown
rest	None	implicit baseline	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

In 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 condition	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment
Control condition	Listening to reversed speech
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Reported accuracy combines the two conditions in a way that is not explained
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Yes
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	L temporal and L > R frontal
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.001
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L insula ↑ R IFG pars orbitalis ↑ R insula ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
Findings notes	R IFG/insula activation noted to survive FWE correction at p < .05

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 vs T2
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.005
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	Threshold was lowered to reveal the R frontal change in activation
Findings	↓ R IFG pars orbitalis ↓ R occipital
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.001
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars orbitalis ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↑ R IFG pars orbitalis ↑ R insula
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia T1 vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.001
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L IFG pars triangularis ↓ L IFG pars orbitalis ↓ L insula ↓ L posterior MTG ↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↓ R IFG pars orbitalis ↓ R insula
Findings notes	L STG in table is actually MTG based on coordinates

Voxelwise analysis 5

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.005
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	Threshold was lowered to reveal L IFG
Findings	↑ L IFG pars orbitalis ↑ L insula ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R IFG
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 6

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear similar
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.001
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 7

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T1
Covariate	Language recovery score T1
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.001
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R IFG pars triangularis
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 8

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2
Covariate	Language recovery score T2
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, no test
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.001
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 9

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T3
Covariate	Language recovery score T3
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, no test
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.001
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 10

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	% change in language recovery score
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, no test
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.001
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R insula ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 11

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 vs T2
Covariate	% change in language recovery score
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, no test
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.001
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 12

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 vs T1
Covariate	% change in language recovery score
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, no test
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.001
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	6
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L MTG; (4) R insula; (5) R IFG pars triangularis; (6) R SMA
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Familywise error (FWE)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ R insula ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
Findings notes	Some other ROIs also significant prior to correction for multiple comparisons; n.b. performance confound

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 vs T2
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	6
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L MTG; (4) R insula; (5) R IFG pars triangularis; (6) R SMA
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Familywise error (FWE)
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	Some other ROIs also significant prior to correction for multiple comparisons; n.b. performance confound

ROI analysis 3

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	6
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L MTG; (4) R insula; (5) R IFG pars triangularis; (6) R SMA
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Familywise error (FWE)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L posterior MTG
Findings notes	Some other ROIs also significant prior to correction for multiple comparisons; n.b. performance confound

ROI analysis 4

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia T1 vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	6
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L MTG; (4) R insula; (5) R IFG pars triangularis; (6) R SMA
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Circular because ROIs defined in one group
Findings	↓ L posterior MTG ↓ R IFG pars triangularis
Findings notes	R IFG difference described in text but not table

ROI analysis 5

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	6
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L MTG; (4) R insula; (5) R IFG pars triangularis; (6) R SMA
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Circular because ROIs defined in one group
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 6

First level contrast	Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear similar
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy combines language and control conditions
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	6
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars triangularis; (3) L MTG; (4) R insula; (5) R IFG pars triangularis; (6) R SMA
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Peak voxels of overall activation map based on all three time points in patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Circular because ROIs defined in one group
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

Additional analyses using absolute improvements in LRS instead of proportional improvements

 

Meinzer et al. (2008)

Reference

Authors	Meinzer M, Flaisch T, Breitenstein C, Wienbruch C, Elbert T, Rockstroh B
Title	Functional re-recruitment of dysfunctional brain areas predicts language recovery in chronic aphasia
Reference	NeuroImage 2008; 39: 2038-2046
PMID	18096407
DOI	10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.10.008

Participants

Language	German
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	11
Number of control participants	0
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (median 51.0 years, range 19-66 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 7; females: 4)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 11; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (median 32 months; range 6-480 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	AAT, study-specific picture naming test with 150 items
Aphasia severity	6 moderate, 4 mild, 1 severe
Aphasia type	7 Broca's, 2 Wernicke's, 1 global, 1 unclassified
First stroke only?	Not stated
Stroke type	Mixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Range 31.0-236.0 cc
Lesion location	L
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—chronic treatment
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~2 weeks later
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	CIAT, 3 hours/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Philips Intera 1.5 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	Block
Total images acquired	160
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
picture naming (trained items)	Word (overt)	8	Yes	No
picture naming (untrained items)	Word (overt)	8	Yes	No
rest	None	16	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

One 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 condition	Picture naming (trained items)
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	—

Contrast 2: picture naming (untrained items) vs rest

Language condition	Picture naming (untrained items)
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Picture naming (trained items) vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ picture naming (trained items)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Accuracy is covariate
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Picture naming score (trained items) increased from 51.7 ± 24.8 to 78.8 ± 22.1, which was statistically significant (p < 0.0001)
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	4
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional area of slow wave activity determined with MEG; (2) right hemisphere homotopic to lesion; (3) right hemisphere homotopic to slow wave area; (4) remainder of left hemisphere; for one patient, maximal slow wave activity was in the right hemisphere and it is not clear how this was handled
How are the ROI(s) defined?	The dependent measure was the number of voxels in each ROI exceeding certain thresholds that differed across subjects depending on their strength of activation; it appears that increases and decreases may have been summed, though the description is hard to follow
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	2 of the 11 patients were classified as outliers and excluded from analyses, however no plots are provided to justify their status as outliers
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Improved picture naming of trained items was correlated with increased signal in 3 of the 4 ROIs, the exception being the right hemisphere ROI homotopic to the slow wave area; after removing the two outliers, only the correlation in the left hemisphere area of slow wave activity remained significant

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Picture naming (untrained items) vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ picture naming (untrained items)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Accuracy is covariate
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Picture naming score (untrained items) increased from 54.0 ± 24.3 to 70.5 ± 26.7, which was statistically significant (p= 0.002)
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	4
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional area of slow wave activity determined with MEG; (2) right hemisphere homotopic to lesion; (3) right hemisphere homotopic to slow wave area; (4) remainder of left hemisphere; for one patient, maximal slow wave activity was in the right hemisphere and it is not clear how this was handled
How are the ROI(s) defined?	The dependent measure was the number of voxels in each ROI exceeding certain thresholds that differed across subjects depending on their strength of activation; it appears that increases and decreases may have been summed, though the description is hard to follow
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	2 of the 11 patients were classified as outliers and excluded from analyses, however no plots are provided to justify their status as outliers
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Improved picture naming of untrained items was correlated with increased signal in all 4 ROIs; after removing the two outliers, none of the correlations remained significant

Notes

Excluded analyses

Additional 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

Authors	Raboyeau G, De Boissezon X, Marie N, Balduyck S, Puel M, Bézy C, Démonet JF, Cardebat D
Title	Right hemisphere activation in recovery from aphasia: lesion effect or function recruitment?
Reference	Neurology 2008; 70: 2900-298
PMID	18209203
DOI	10.1212/01.wnl.0000287115.85956.87

Participants

Language	French
Inclusion criteria	Naming deficit; good comprehension
Number of individuals with aphasia	10
Number of control participants	20
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No (mean 53.8 ± 14.7 years; controls were younger)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 6; females: 4)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 10; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (range 7-102 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity and type
Language evaluation	Montreal-Toulouse Aphasia Battery
Aphasia severity	Mild (but had initially been severe)
Aphasia type	4 anomic, 3 conduction, 2 Broca's, 1 AoS
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Range 29.9-195.2 cc
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—chronic treatment
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~4 weeks later
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Lexical training, 15 minutes/day, 5 days/week, 4 weeks; the control group were trained to relearn foreign words that they had learned in school but since mostly forgotten
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens ECAT HR+)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	6
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	No (lesion impact not addressed)
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
picture naming (native language)	Word (overt)	aphasia: 4; control: 2	Yes	Unknown
picture naming (relearned foreign language) (controls only)	Word (overt)	2	Yes	Unknown
rest	None	2	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Picture 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 condition	Picture naming (native in patients; relearned foreign in controls)
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	Presumably only the relearned foreign condition was used in controls (not the native condition), but this is not stated explicitly

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Picture naming (native in patients; relearned foreign in controls) vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal aphasia vs control
Group(s)	(Aphasia T2 vs T1) vs (control T2 vs T1)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, but attempt made
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Relearned foreign language was an attempt to equate to recovery in patients; still, patients improved less than controls, as shown by a significant interaction of group by time (p < .0001)
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	30 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	Nature of control contrast not clear; negative tail of contrast was masked to exclude lesioned areas, but the mask may have been more extensive than that
Findings	↑ L orbitofrontal
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Picture naming (native in patients; relearned foreign in controls) vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ picture naming accuracy
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Accuracy is covariate
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	30 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	Nature of control contrast not clear
Findings	↑ R insula ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R orbitofrontal ↑ R anterior cingulate ↓ L intraparietal sulcus ↓ L precuneus ↓ L posterior cingulate ↓ R dorsal precentral ↓ R precuneus
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

Conjunction analysis, because it collapsed across patients and controls

 

Richter et al. (2008)

Reference

Authors	Richter M, Miltner WH, Straube T
Title	Association between therapy outcome and right-hemispheric activation in chronic aphasia
Reference	Brain 2008; 131: 1391-1401
PMID	18349055
DOI	10.1093/brain/awn043

Participants

Language	German
Inclusion criteria	Main deficits in production rather than comprehension
Number of individuals with aphasia	16 (plus 8 excluded: 5 completed only one of the two sessions; 3 unable to perform the tasks)
Number of control participants	8
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 58.3 years; range 42-73 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 12; females: 4)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 16; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	No (> 12 months; actual TPO not stated)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	AAT, two subtests of ANELT
Aphasia severity	TT range 5-50
Aphasia type	7 anomic, 7 Broca's, 2 global; it was an inclusion criterion that the main deficits were in production
First stroke only?	Not stated
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—chronic treatment
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~2 weeks later
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	CIAT, 3 hours/day, 10 days
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens Vision plus 1.5 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No (minor discrepancies in description of timing)
Design type	Block
Total images acquired	134
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	No (lesion impact not addressed)
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
reading words silently	Word (covert)	4	Yes	Unknown
word stem completion	Word (covert)	4	Yes	Unknown
rest	None	10 (?)	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Preliminary 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 condition	Reading words silently
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	Appears to be somewhat L-lateralized frontal, but not well visualized
Contrast notes	—

Contrast 2: word stem completion vs rest

Language condition	Word stem completion
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	No
Control activation notes	Bilateral frontal; other regions not well visualized
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Reading words silently vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia T1 vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	R hemisphere
Correction for multiple comparisons	Mixed** (major limitation)
Software	BrainVoyager QX 1.7
Voxelwise p	R IFG/R insula ROI: .005; elsewhere: .001
Cluster extent	R IFG/R insula ROI: 0.108 cc; elsewhere: none
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ R IFG ↑ R insula
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Word stem completion vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia T1 vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	R hemisphere
Correction for multiple comparisons	Mixed** (major limitation)
Software	BrainVoyager QX 1.7
Voxelwise p	R IFG/R insula ROI: .005; elsewhere: .001
Cluster extent	R IFG/R insula ROI: 0.108 cc; elsewhere: none
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ R dorsal precentral
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrast	Reading words silently vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T1
Covariate	Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	R hemisphere
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	BrainVoyager QX 1.7
Voxelwise p	.05
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	Nature of thresholding not entirely clear, so coded according to best guess
Findings	↑ R IFG ↑ R insula ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R posterior MTG
Findings notes	Increased activity correlated with more behavioral improvement

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrast	Word stem completion vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T1
Covariate	Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	R hemisphere
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	BrainVoyager QX 1.7
Voxelwise p	.05
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	Nature of thresholding not entirely clear, so coded according to best guess
Findings	↑ R IFG ↑ R insula
Findings notes	Increased activity correlated with more behavioral improvement

Voxelwise analysis 5

First level contrast	Reading words silently vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	R hemisphere
Correction for multiple comparisons	Mixed** (major limitation)
Software	BrainVoyager QX 1.7
Voxelwise p	R IFG/R insula ROI: .005; elsewhere: .001
Cluster extent	R IFG/R insula ROI: 0.108 cc; elsewhere: none
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 6

First level contrast	Word stem completion vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	R hemisphere
Correction for multiple comparisons	Mixed** (major limitation)
Software	BrainVoyager QX 1.7
Voxelwise p	R IFG/R insula ROI: .005; elsewhere: .001
Cluster extent	R IFG/R insula ROI: 0.108 cc; elsewhere: none
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Reading words silently vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T1
Covariate	Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	L IFG/insula or L perilesional
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Peak activations in individual patients in L IFG/insula or L perilesional regions (somewhat unclear)
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Word stem completion vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T1
Covariate	Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	L IFG/insula or L perilesional
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Peak activations in individual patients in L IFG/insula or L perilesional regions (somewhat unclear)
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 3

First level contrast	Reading words silently vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	4
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) R IFG/insula; (2) R precentral; (3) R MTG; (4) L IFG/insula or L perilesional
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Regions where T1 activation was correlated with subsequent improvement, along with the previously defined left hemisphere ROI
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Circular because functional ROIs based on related contrast on same data
Findings	↓ R posterior MTG
Findings notes	Decreased activity over time correlated with more behavioral improvement

ROI analysis 4

First level contrast	Word stem completion vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ overall language measure (composite measure of AAT spontaneous speech, token test, ANELT auditory comprehensibility, ANELT semantic comprehensibility)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	3
What are the ROI(s)?	(1, 2) two clusters within R IFG/insula ROI; (3) L IFG/insula or L perilesional
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Regions where T1 activation was correlated with subsequent improvement, along with the previously defined left hemisphere ROI
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Circular because functional ROIs based on related contrast on same data
Findings	↓ R IFG ↓ R insula
Findings notes	Decreased activity over time correlated with more behavioral improvement

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

de Boissezon et al. (2009)

Reference

Authors	de Boissezon X, Marie N, Castel-Lacanal E, Marque P, Bezy C, Gros H, Lotterie JA, Cardebat D, Puel M, Demonet JF
Title	Good recovery from aphasia is also supported by right basal ganglia: a longitudinal controlled PET study
Reference	Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2009; 45: 547-558
PMID	20032914
DOI	N/A

Participants

Language	French
Inclusion criteria	Only part of L MCA; able to perform word generation; no severe aphasia
Number of individuals with aphasia	13
Number of control participants	0
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	Yes (7 out of 13 patients appear to represent the same data reported in de Boissezon et al. (2005))
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (range 31.2-74.2 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 12; females: 1)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 13; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	No* (moderate limitation) (T1: mean 64 ± 32 days; T2: mean 11.8 ± 1.4 months; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	Montreal-Toulouse Aphasia Battery
Aphasia severity	Not stated
Aphasia type	T1: 3 transcortical motor, 2 anomic, 2 Broca's, 2 transcortical sensory, 2 Wernicke's, 1 conduction, 1 agrammatic; T2: not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Mixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Range 0.9-43.4 cc
Lesion location	L MCA (7 subcortical, 6 cortical)
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—recovery
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: mean 64 ± 32 days; T2: mean 11.8 ± 1.4 months; T1 varies considerably from early to late subacute
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Community SLT; 45 minutes/day, 1-3 days/week
Is the scanner described?	Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR+)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	6
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	No (lesion impact not addressed)
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
word generation	Word (overt)	4	Yes	Yes
rest	None	2	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

Contrast 1: word generation vs rest

Language condition	Word generation
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	No
Control activation notes	Control data in Cardebat et al. (2003); bilateral fronto-temporal and some other regions per text
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Word generation vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with "good recovery" (n = 6) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (the "good recovery" group showed more improvement than the "poor recovery" group in terms of accuracy on the task, but the distinction was not borne out in behavioral data more generally)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, matched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	P = 0.07
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.001
Cluster extent	100 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	Contrast may not have included resting condition; inappropriate masking
Findings	↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R angular gyrus ↑ R occipital ↑ R thalamus ↑ R basal ganglia ↓ L cerebellum
Findings notes	Based on coordinates in Table 5

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Word generation vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with "poor recovery" (n = 7) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (the "poor recovery" group showed less improvement than the "good recovery" group in terms of accuracy on the task, but the distinction was not borne out in behavioral data more generally)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, matched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.001
Cluster extent	100 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	Contrast may not have included resting condition; inappropriate masking
Findings	↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R somato-motor ↑ R cerebellum ↓ R basal ganglia
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrast	Word generation vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Word generation accuracy
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Accuracy is covariate
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	100 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	Each patient's two sessions may be entered into the model without accounting for the dependence between them
Findings	↑ L supramarginal gyrus ↑ L occipital ↑ L anterior cingulate ↑ R insula ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R posterior STG ↑ R anterior temporal ↑ R occipital ↓ L cerebellum
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Fridriksson et al. (2009)

Reference

Authors	Fridriksson J, Baker JM, Moser D
Title	Cortical mapping of naming errors in aphasia
Reference	Hum Brain Mapp 2009; 30: 2487-2498
PMID	19294641
DOI	10.1002/hbm.20683

Participants

Language	US English
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	11
Number of control participants	10
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 58.8 ± 14.7 years, range 33-78 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 6; females: 5)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (range 10-101 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	WAB; BNT
Aphasia severity	AQ range 31.8-91.5
Aphasia type	6 anomic, 4 Broca's, 1 transcortical motor; alternatively: 6 fluent, 5 non-fluent
First stroke only?	Not stated
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Range 3.0-342.2 cc
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	No (not stated)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No (timing of picture presentation not clearly explained)
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	120
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	sparse sampling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
picture naming	Word (overt)	80	Yes	No
viewing scrambled images	None	40	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

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

Language condition	Picture naming (correct trials)
Control condition	Viewing scrambled images
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	No
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	Control data in Fridriksson et al. (2007); motor activations are prominent; there is some L frontal activation but little temporal activation in either hemisphere
Contrast notes	—

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

Language condition	Picture naming (phonemic paraphasias)
Control condition	Picture naming (correct trials)
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	No, by design
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	N/A
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	N/A
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	N/A
Control activation notes	Control data N/A because controls do not typically make errors
Contrast notes	—

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

Language condition	Picture naming (semantic paraphasias)
Control condition	Picture naming (correct trials)
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	No, by design
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	N/A
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	N/A
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	N/A
Control activation notes	Control data N/A because controls do not typically make errors
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
Software	FSL (FEAT 5.4)
Voxelwise p	~.01 (z > 2.3)
Cluster extent	Based on GRFT
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Picture naming (phonemic paraphasias) vs picture naming (correct trials)
Analysis class	Cross-sectional performance-defined conditions
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, by design
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
Software	FSL (FEAT 5.4)
Voxelwise p	~.01 (z > 2.3)
Cluster extent	Based on GRFT
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L superior parietal ↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↑ L occipital
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrast	Picture naming (semantic paraphasias) vs picture naming (correct trials)
Analysis class	Cross-sectional performance-defined conditions
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, by design
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
Software	FSL (FEAT 5.4)
Voxelwise p	~.01 (z > 2.3)
Cluster extent	Based on GRFT
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↑ R occipital
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Picture naming accuracy
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	5
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) R IFG/insula; (2) R motor/premotor; (3) R SMA; (4) R inferior parietal; (5) R superior temporal
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Regions activated for picture naming vs viewing scrambled images in aphasia
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ R IFG ↑ R insula
Findings notes	R IFG showed more activation in patients who produced more correct responses

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Menke et al. (2009)

Reference

Authors	Menke R, Meinzer M, Kugel H, Deppe M, Baumgärtner A, Schiffbauer H, Thomas M, Kramer K, Lohmann H, Flöel A, Knecht S, Breitenstein C
Title	Imaging short- and long-term training success in chronic aphasia
Reference	BMC Neurosci 2009; 10: 118
PMID	19772660
DOI	10.1186/1471-2202-10-118

Participants

Language	German
Inclusion criteria	Moderate to severe anomia
Number of individuals with aphasia	8
Number of control participants	9
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (range 34-67 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 5; females: 3)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 8; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (range 1.8-6.9 years)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	AAT
Aphasia severity	6 moderate-severe, 2 severe
Aphasia type	7 Broca's, 1 global
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Mixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—chronic treatment
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~2 weeks later; T3: 8 months after the end of treatment
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Intensive anomia training; 3 hours/day; 2 weeks
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Philips Intera 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No (total images acquired not stated)
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	probably ~360, but not stated
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
picture naming (trained items)	Word (overt)	30	No	No
picture naming (untrained items)	Word (overt)	30	No	No
picture naming (already known items)	Word (overt)	30	Yes	Unknown
rest	None	implicit baseline	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Patients 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 condition	Picture naming (trained items)
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	Table of coordinates only
Contrast notes	—

Contrast 2: picture naming (untrained items) vs rest

Language condition	Picture naming (untrained items)
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	Table of coordinates only
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Picture naming (trained items) vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Subsequent outcome (T2) picture naming of trained items outside the scanner
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	No (the logic behind correlating activation changes and language outcome is unclear)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, no test
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Mixed** (major limitation)
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.05, but at least one voxel in the cluster had to be p < .001
Cluster extent	0.270 cc
Statistical details	There was an exclusive mask based on activation changes for untrained pictures, but it is unclear what the behavioral covariate was for the mask generation, nor were the regions in the mask reported
Findings	↑ L occipital ↑ L hippocampus/MTL ↑ R precuneus ↑ R occipital ↑ R posterior cingulate ↑ R hippocampus/MTL
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Picture naming (untrained items) vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 vs T1
Covariate	Subsequent outcome (T3) picture naming of trained items outside the scanner
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	No (the logic behind correlating activation changes and language outcome is unclear)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, no test
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Mixed** (major limitation)
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	.05, but at least one voxel in the cluster had to be p < .001
Cluster extent	0.270 cc
Statistical details	There was an exclusive mask based on activation changes for untrained pictures, but it is unclear what the behavioral covariate was for the mask generation, nor were the regions in the mask reported
Findings	↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ R inferior parietal lobule ↓ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↓ R basal ganglia
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Specht et al. (2009)

Reference

Authors	Specht K, Zahn R, Willmes K, Weis S, Holtel C, Krause BJ, Herzog H, Huber W
Title	Joint independent component analysis of structural and functional images reveals complex patterns of functional reorganisation in stroke aphasia
Reference	NeuroImage 2009; 47: 2057-2063
PMID	19524049
DOI	10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.011

Participants

Language	German
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	12
Number of control participants	12
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No (mean 49 + 14 years, range 30-71 years; controls were younger)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 9; females: 3)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	No (mean 1.9 ± 1.4 years, range 0.2-3.7 years; one non-chronic patient is included)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	AAT
Aphasia severity	Not stated
Aphasia type	3 global, 3 Wernicke's, 2 amnestic, 2 Broca's, 2 unclassified
First stroke only?	Not stated
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L MCA, with greatest overlap in the posterior STG
Participants notes	15 controls were scanned but 3 were randomly excluded to match group sizes for jICA.

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (CTI-Siemens HR+)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	9
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
lexical decision (words vs pseudowords)	Button press	3	Yes	Yes
lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words)	Button press	3	Yes	Yes
tone decision	Button press	3	Yes	Yes

Conditions notes

Behavioral 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 condition	Lexical decision (words vs pseudowords)
Control condition	Lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words)
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	The contrast activated a ventral part of the L IFG, along with L anterior cingulate and L DLPFC
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Lexical decision (words vs pseudowords) vs lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words)
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	.001
Cluster extent	0.64 cc
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ R posterior STG ↑ R Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	Activation is 1105 voxels (> 8 cc) so quite convincing, but when the contrast was examined in the patient group, this region was not activated.

Complex analysis 1

First level contrast	Lexical decision (words vs pseudowords) vs lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words)
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Joint ICA was performed on structural and functional contrast images using FIT 1.1b. Only 1 of the 8 components differed between groups in its loadings and was interpretable. The structural part of this component related to the patients' lesions. The functional part was thresholded at voxelwise p < .001 (CDT), arbitrary minimum cluster extent = 0.64 cc.
Findings	Other
Findings notes	The component that differed between groups showed more activation for patients than controls in the L anterior temporal lobe, L cerebellum, R posterior STG, R anterior temporal lobe, R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus, R cerebellum, and R brainstem, and less activation in patients than controls in the L IFG, L anterior temporal lobe, L occipital lobe, L anterior cingulate, L cerebellum, L thalamus, and R IFG.

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Warren et al. (2009)

Reference

Authors	Warren JE, Crinion JT, Lambon Ralph MA, Wise RJ
Title	Anterior temporal lobe connectivity correlates with functional outcome after aphasic stroke
Reference	Brain 2009; 132: 3428-3442
PMID	19903736
DOI	10.1093/brain/awp270

Participants

Language	UK English
Inclusion criteria	Comprehension deficit per CAT and TROG (1 patient did not meet this criterion); anterolateral superior temporal cortex spared
Number of individuals with aphasia	16 (plus 8 excluded: lesions involved L anterolateral superior temporal cortex)
Number of control participants	11
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	Yes (reanalysis of subset of dataset from Crinion et al. (2006))
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No (mean 65.8 ± 2.0 SEM years; controls were younger)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 11; females: 5)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 16; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	No (mean 28.8 ± 9.2 months SEM; minimum time post onset not reported, but some patients in Crinion et al. (2006) were subacute)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Not at all
Language evaluation	CAT, TROG
Aphasia severity	Not stated
Aphasia type	Not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Patients with positive anterior temporal interconnectivity: mean 93.3 ± 24.0 cc; patients with negative anterior temporal interconnectivity: mean 96.1 ± 27.6 cc
Lesion location	L not including anterolateral superior temporal cortex; maximal overlap in posterior superior temporal cortex
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR++/966 (10 patients and all controls) or GE Advance (6 patients))
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	12-16
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	two different scanners used for patients, but not for controls

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
listening to narrative speech	None	6-8	N/A	N/A
listening to reversed speech	None	6-8	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

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

Language condition	Listening to narrative speech
Control condition	Listening to reversed speech
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Yes
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	11 participants; L-lateralized posterior temporal, bilateral anterior temporal, no frontal
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	6
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6)
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Somewhat circular because ROIs were defined only in regions where controls showed significant connectivity (even though ROIs were anatomical)
Findings	None
Findings notes	L IFG pars triangularis almost reached significance (p = .053) for more activation in patients

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Auditory sentence comprehension
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	6
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6)
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L anterior temporal
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 3

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Written sentence comprehension
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	6
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6)
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 4

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Auditory single word comprehension
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	6
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6)
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	L anterior temporal p = .08

ROI analysis 5

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Auditory syntactic comprehension
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	6
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6)
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	L anterior temporal p = .09

ROI analysis 6

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Connectivity between L and R ATL
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) R anterior superior temporal cortex
How are the ROI(s) defined?	ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6)
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 7

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Time post onset
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	L anterior superior temporal cortex
How are the ROI(s) defined?	ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6)
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 8

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Lesion volume
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	L anterior superior temporal cortex
How are the ROI(s) defined?	ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6)
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 9

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with positive anterior temporal interconnectivity (n = 8) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	6
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6)
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Somewhat circular because ROIs were defined only in regions where controls showed significant connectivity (even though ROIs were anatomical); excluded 3 patients with L IFG damage
Findings	↑ L IFG pars triangularis
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 10

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia with negative anterior temporal interconnectivity (n = 8) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	6
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6)
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Somewhat circular because ROIs were defined only in regions where controls showed significant connectivity (even though ROIs were anatomical); excluded 1 patient with L IFG damage
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 11

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with positive anterior temporal interconnectivity (n = 8) vs with negative anterior temporal interconnectivity (n = 8)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	6
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6)
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Excluded 4 patients with L IFG damage
Findings	↑ L IFG pars triangularis
Findings notes	—

Complex analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Lesion status of each voxel
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	VLSM with FDR correction was used to identify any regions in which damage was predictive of L anterior temporal activation.
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

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

Authors	Chau AC, Fai Cheung RT, Jiang X, Au-Yeung PK, Li LS
Title	An fMRI study showing the effect of acupuncture in chronic stage stroke patients with aphasia
Reference	J Acupunct Meridian Stud 2010; 30: 53-57
PMID	20633517
DOI	10.1016/s2005-2901(10)60009-x

Participants

Language	Cantonese
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	7
Number of control participants	0
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 63 ± 10 years, range 56-79 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 5; females: 2)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 7; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (mean 17 ± 8 months, range 8-28 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity only
Language evaluation	Cantonese Aphasia Battery (modified WAB)
Aphasia severity	5 patients had AQ > 75, 2 had AQ < 30
Aphasia type	Not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Location only
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	3 L MCA, 2 L frontal, 2 L basal ganglia
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—chronic treatment
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~10 weeks later
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Acupuncture, 3 sessions/week, 8 weeks
Is the scanner described?	No (not stated)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No (inconsistent information regarding timing)
Design type	Block
Total images acquired	90?
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	No (lesion impact not addressed)
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

No* (moderate limitation) (nature of questions not described in detail)

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
answering questions from Cantonese Aphasia Battery	Button press	3	Unknown	Unknown
visual decision	Button press	3	Unknown	Unknown

Conditions notes

Responses 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 condition	Answering questions from Cantonese Aphasia Battery
Control condition	Visual decision
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Answering questions from Cantonese Aphasia Battery vs visual decision
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ WAB AQ
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (no treatment effect)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Unclear or not stated
Software	SPM2
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Stated to be corrected p < 0.05, but the nature of correction is not described; it is not entirely clear whether the functional measure was the difference between T1 and T2 (we assume it is); it is also not clear whether or not 2 patients with low AQ were excluded (we assume not)
Findings	↑ L posterior MTG
Findings notes	Finding based on table; additional small activations are shown in figure but not table

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Fridriksson (2010)

Reference

Authors	Fridriksson J
Title	Preservation and modulation of specific left hemisphere regions is vital for treated recovery from anomia in stroke
Reference	J Neurosci 2010; 30: 11558-11564
PMID	20810877
DOI	10.1523/jneurosci.2227-10.2010

Participants

Language	US English
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	19 (plus 7 excluded: 6 for making fewer than 5 correct responses in one or more sessions; 1 for excessive head motion)
Number of control participants	0
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	Yes ("several" patients overlapped with those reported by Fridriksson et al. (2009, 2010))
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 59.7 ± 12.3 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 12; females: 14)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (> 8 months; actual TPO not stated)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity and type
Language evaluation	WAB
Aphasia severity	AQ mean 60.4 ± 25.6 (including excluded patients)
Aphasia type	11 anomic, 10 Broca's, 3 conduction, 1 transcortical motor, 1 Wernicke's (including excluded patients)
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	Demographic data includes excluded patients

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—chronic treatment
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment/~4 weeks later; note that there were two separate sessions per time point, as well as another two sessions midway through treatment that are not analyzed in this paper
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Anomia treatment using a cueing hierarchy, 3 hours/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks, with a 1-week gap between the two weeks
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No (timing of stimuli within the silent periods is unclear)
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	120
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	sparse sampling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
picture naming	Word (overt)	80	Yes	Unknown
viewing abstract pictures	None	40	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Patients 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 condition	Picture naming (correct trials)
Control condition	Viewing abstract pictures
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	No
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	Control data in Fridriksson et al. (2007); motor activations are prominent; there is some L frontal activation but little temporal activation in either hemisphere.
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ picture naming accuracy
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
Software	FSL 4.1
Voxelwise p	~.01 (z > 2.3)
Cluster extent	Based on GRFT
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ L supramarginal gyrus ↑ L intraparietal sulcus ↑ L superior parietal ↑ L precuneus
Findings notes	Activated regions were on the borders on the lesion distribution in the 19 included patients

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Fridriksson et al. (2010)

Reference

Authors	Fridriksson J, Bonilha L, Baker JM, Moser D, Rorden C
Title	Activity in preserved left hemisphere regions predicts anomia severity in aphasia
Reference	Cereb Cortex 2010; 20: 1013-1019
PMID	19687294
DOI	10.1093/cercor/bhp160

Participants

Language	US English
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	15
Number of control participants	9
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 61.9 years, range 41-81 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No (males: 7; females: 8; not stated for controls)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (mean 29.7 months, > 6 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity and type
Language evaluation	WAB
Aphasia severity	AQ mean 77.1, range 47.1-93.7
Aphasia type	10 anomic, 3 Broca's, 2 conduction
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No (exact timing of picture presentation not specified)
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	120
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	sparse sampling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
picture naming	Word (overt)	80	Yes	Yes
viewing abstract pictures	None	40	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

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

Language condition	Picture naming (correct trials)
Control condition	Viewing abstract pictures
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	L-lateralized frontal and temporal activations, but also bilateral visual, motor and auditory
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Picture naming accuracy
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
Software	FSL 4.1
Voxelwise p	~.02 (z > 2)
Cluster extent	Based on GRFT
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars orbitalis ↑ L occipital ↑ L anterior cingulate
Findings notes	Greater activation was associated with better picture naming; L IFG pars orbitalis activation classified as middle frontal gyrus in the paper, but coordinates suggest otherwise

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
Software	FSL 4.1
Voxelwise p	~.02 (z > 2)
Cluster extent	Based on GRFT
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Picture naming accuracy
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	A single ROI comprising 3 regions where activation in patients was correlated with picture naming accuracy: the L IFG pars orbitalis, occipital lobe, and anterior cingulate
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Based on SPM analysis 1
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether these regions were recruited in the patients with better naming, or not activated in the patients with worse naming, relative to the control mean
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Patients with better naming showed greater activation than controls, while the patients with poorer naming showed less activation than controls.

Complex analysis 1

First level contrast	Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Lesion status of each voxel
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	VLSM was used to identify any regions in which damage was predictive of activation in the regions identified in SPM analysis 1, considered as a single ROI. There was no correction for multiple comparisons, and the analysis is appropriately presented as exploratory.
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Only in the L IFG pars opercularis was damage predictive of reduced activation in the potentially compensatory network.

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Sharp et al. (2010)

Reference

Authors	Sharp DJ, Turkheimer FE, Bose SK, Scott SK, Wise RJ
Title	Increased frontoparietal integration after stroke and cognitive recovery
Reference	Ann Neurol 2010; 68: 753-756
PMID	20687116
DOI	10.1002/ana.21866

Participants

Language	UK English
Inclusion criteria	Lesion in vicinity of L STG; no extensive frontal damage; no inferior temporal damage; able to perform tasks
Number of individuals with aphasia	9
Number of control participants	18
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	Yes (additional analysis of same dataset as Sharp et al. (2004))
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (median 58 years, range 39-72 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 8; females: 1)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 9; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (mean 45 months, range 14-145 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity only
Language evaluation	Subtests from CAT, subtests from PALPA, Action for dysphasic adults, TROG, PPT
Aphasia severity	Mild
Aphasia type	Not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	Lesion in vicinity of L STG; no extensive frontal damage; no inferior temporal damage
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens HR++ 966)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	16
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
semantic decision	Word (overt)	aphasia: 8; control: 4	Yes	Yes
syllable count decision	Word (overt)	aphasia: 8; control: 4	Yes	Unknown
semantic decision (noise vocoded) (control only)	Word (overt)	4 (control)	Yes	Yes
syllable count decision (noise vocoded) (control only)	Word (overt)	4 (control)	Yes	Yes

Conditions notes

Seems 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 condition	Semantic decision (clear in patients; average of clear and noise vocoded in controls)
Control condition	Syllable count decision (clear in patients; average of clear and noise vocoded in controls)
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	No, different
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	No, different
Behavioral data notes	Significant differences per Sharp et al. (2004)
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	Not stated exactly what contrast was used in controls
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Semantic decision (clear in patients; average of clear and noise vocoded in controls) vs syllable count decision (clear in patients; average of clear and noise vocoded in controls)
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, but attempt made
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Appear similar
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy and RT were not significantly different for the semantic task; statistics are not reported for the syllable counting task, but the data provided suggest that accuracy was probably not matched, while RT probably was
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	12
What are the ROI(s)?	Functional connectivity between pairs of spared nodes of the L hemisphere semantic network and R hemisphere homotopic regions: (1) L SFG-L AG; (2) L SFG-L IFG; (3) L SFG-L IT; (4) L AG-L IFG; (5) L AG-L IT; (6) L IFG-L IT; (7-12) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Partial correlations between nodes
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Statistical details	—
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Patients showed greater connectivity between L SFG and L AG than controls while performing the semantic task; this was not the case for the syllable counting task, however connectivity during performance of the two tasks was not compared directly

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

Authors	Thompson CK, den Ouden DB, Bonakdarpour B, Garibaldi K, Parrish TB
Title	Neural plasticity and treatment-induced recovery of sentence processing in agrammatism
Reference	Neuropsychologia 2010; 48: 3211-3227
PMID	20603138
DOI	10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.06.036

Participants

Language	US English
Inclusion criteria	Agrammatic
Number of individuals with aphasia	6
Number of control participants	12
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 54 years, range 38-66 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 5; females: 1)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 6; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (range 6-146 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	WAB, NAVS, narrative language sample
Aphasia severity	AQ range 66.8-85.0
Aphasia type	All agrammatic; per WAB scores provided: 3 Broca's, 3 unclassified
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	5 L MCA, 1 R MCA with aphasia
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—chronic treatment
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, 9-15 weeks later
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Treatment of underlying forms
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No (total images acquired not stated)
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	not stated
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
auditory sentence-picture matching (auditory; object cleft)	Button press	60	No	No
auditory sentence-picture matching (subject cleft)	Button press	60	Yes	Yes
auditory sentence-picture matching (simple past tense active)	Button press	60	Yes	No
rest	None	implicit baseline	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

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

Language condition	Auditory sentence-picture matching (all three sentence types)
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Auditory sentence-picture matching (all three sentence types) vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear similar
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Appear similar
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	18
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L BA 7; (2) L BA 9; (3) L BA 13; (4) L BA 21; (5) L BA 22; (6) L BA 39; (7) L BA 40; (8) L BA 44; (9) L BA 45; (10-18) homotopic counterparts
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas; proportion of patients who showed increases and decreases in (parts of) each ROI in individual fixed effects SPM analyses
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L angular gyrus ↑ L superior parietal ↑ L mid temporal ↑ R supramarginal gyrus ↑ R superior parietal ↓ L insula ↓ L posterior STG
Findings notes	These are the regions involved in what the authors interpret as a "general shift"

Notes

Excluded analyses

Individual patient analyses

 

Tyler et al. (2010)

Reference

Authors	Tyler LK, Wright P, Randall B, Marslen-Wilson WD, Stamatakis EA
Title	Reorganization of syntactic processing following left-hemisphere brain damage: does right-hemisphere activity preserve function?
Reference	Brain 2010; 133: 3396-3408
PMID	20870779
DOI	10.1093/brain/awq262

Participants

Language	UK English
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	14
Number of control participants	10
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 54 years, range 33-76 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 11; females: 3)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 14; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (mean 7 years, range 1.4-37.3 years)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Not at all
Language evaluation	Sentence-picture matching, lexical decision, phonological similarity, word repetition, sentence repetition, morphological similarity, semantic categorization, sentence acceptability
Aphasia severity	Not stated
Aphasia type	Not stated
First stroke only?	Not stated
Stroke type	Mixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L
Participants notes	2 of the 14 patients were not stroke, but were post resective surgery

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No* (moderate limitation) (there was only one block per condition per run, so condition could be confounded with low frequency drift; also, the length of the sentences is not stated so it is unclear how well the HRF peak aligns with the sparse acquisitions)
Design type	Block
Total images acquired	69
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	sparse sampling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
listening to normal sentences and detecting a target word	Button press	2	Yes	Unknown
listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word	Button press	2	Yes	Unknown
listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word	Button press	2	Yes	Unknown
listening to "musical rain" and detecting a period of white noise	Button press	2	Yes	Unknown
rest	None	2	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Auditory 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 condition	Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word
Control condition	Listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Appear similar
Behavioral data notes	There appears to be a small RT difference (control condition slower)
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Yes
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	No
Control activation notes	There are more control participants in another paper (Tyler et al., 2010, Cereb Cortex), but the relevant contrast does not seem to be shown in that paper
Contrast notes	The contrast is intended to identify regions involved in syntactic processing, however it seems possible that there are semantic differences between these conditions also

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Appear similar
Behavioral data notes	The two groups showed similar differences between RTs in the two conditions of the contrast
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on pp. 3402-3; each group is presented at voxelwise p < .005 (CDT), cluster-corrected p < .05 with GRFT
Findings	↑ R IFG pars triangularis ↑ R IFG pars orbitalis ↓ L posterior MTG
Findings notes	Several other potential differences are apparent in the figure, but only the differences tabulated are interpreted in the text

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	RT difference between early and late targets on grammatical but meaningless sentences (a measure of syntactic processing)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Analyses focuses on RT differences between early and late targets, not on mean RT per se
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	L IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Activated for the same contrast
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars triangularis ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
Findings notes	L IFG showed more activation in patients that had a larger target position effect (indicative of better syntactic processing)

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	RT difference between early and late targets on normal sentences
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	L IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Activated for the same contrast
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 3

First level contrast	Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	RT difference between early and late targets on scrambled sentences
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	L IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Activated for the same contrast
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 4

First level contrast	Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Damage to L IFG, estimated from T1 signal
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	R IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Activated for the same contrast
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	No correlation (p = .57)

ROI analysis 5

First level contrast	Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Syntactic processing (presumably the target position effect, though this is not stated)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	R IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Activated for the same contrast
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	No correlation (p = .41)

Complex analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Lesion status of each voxel
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	VBM was used to identify any regions where damage was predictive of activation in the L IFG pars triangularis and orbitalis. Tissue integrity was quantified in terms of T1 signal. Clusterwise correction was used, which is not appropriate for VBM.
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Only in the L IFG itself was damage predictive of reduced activation in the L IFG.

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

Authors	van Oers CA, Vink M, van Zandvoort MJ, van der Worp HB, de Haan EH, Kappelle LJ, Ramsey NF, Dijkhuizen RM
Title	Contribution of the left and right inferior frontal gyrus in recovery from aphasia: a functional MRI study in stroke patients with preserved hemodynamic responsiveness
Reference	NeuroImage 2010; 49: 885-893
PMID	19733673
DOI	10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.08.057

Participants

Language	Dutch
Inclusion criteria	MCA; mRS < 3; able to perform at least 2 out of the 3 tasks
Number of individuals with aphasia	13
Number of control participants	13
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 53 ± 14 years, range 29-74 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 4; females: 9)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No (right: 13; left: 0; not stated for controls)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (range 1.3-4.7 years)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	AAT, BNT, TT
Aphasia severity	4 moderate, 4 severe, 3 recovered, 2 mild; all had aphasia initially
Aphasia type	5 anomic, 4 Broca's, 3 recovered, 1 Wernicke's
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Range 6.0-167.3 cc
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	Behavioral data (TT and a naming measure) were also acquired subacutely (mean 26 ± 18 days, range 5-56 days)
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Philips Achieva 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	Block
Total images acquired	3036
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	breath holding scan also done to measure hemodynamic responsiveness

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
written word-picture matching	Button press	6	Yes	Yes
semantic decision	Button press	6	Yes	Yes
verb generation	Word (covert)	8	Yes	Yes
visual decision	Button press	12	Unknown	Unknown
rest	None	20	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Patients 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 condition	Written word-picture matching
Control condition	Visual decision
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy not reported for control condition
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	Not clearly stated that language tasks were contrasted only with arrow decision task and not rest for the first two contrasts, but this can be inferred

Contrast 2: semantic decision vs visual decision

Language condition	Semantic decision
Control condition	Visual decision
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy not reported for control condition
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	Not clearly stated that language tasks were contrasted only with arrow decision task and not rest for the first two contrasts, but this can be inferred

Contrast 3: verb generation vs rest

Language condition	Verb generation
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No (see specific limitation(s) below)

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Written word-picture matching vs visual decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy not reported for control condition
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L IFG ↓ LI (language network) ↓ LI (frontal)
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs visual decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy not reported for control condition
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L IFG ↓ LI (language network) ↓ LI (frontal)
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 3

First level contrast	Verb generation vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L IFG ↓ LI (language network) ↓ LI (frontal)
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 4

First level contrast	Written word-picture matching vs visual decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Picture-word matching accuracy
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Accuracy is covariate
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 5

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs visual decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Semantic decision accuracy
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Accuracy is covariate
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 6

First level contrast	Written word-picture matching vs visual decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Overall language measure
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 7

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs visual decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Overall language measure
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	Not clear if it was LI for whole language network
Findings	↑ LI (language network)
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 8

First level contrast	Verb generation vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Overall language measure
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 9

First level contrast	Written word-picture matching vs visual decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Lesion volume
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG)
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 10

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs visual decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Lesion volume
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG)
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 11

First level contrast	Verb generation vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Lesion volume
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG)
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 12

First level contrast	Written word-picture matching vs visual decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Damage to L hemisphere language regions
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG)
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 13

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs visual decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Damage to L hemisphere language regions
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG)
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 14

First level contrast	Verb generation vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Damage to L hemisphere language regions
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) R anterior language region (IFG); (2) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG)
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 15

First level contrast	Written word-picture matching vs visual decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Previous (current vs subacute) Δ naming
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	No (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 16

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs visual decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Previous (current vs subacute) Δ naming
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	No (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 17

First level contrast	Verb generation vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Previous (current vs subacute) Δ naming
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	No (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 18

First level contrast	Written word-picture matching vs visual decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Previous (current vs subacute) Δ TT
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	No (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function; TT not optimal measure of overall language function)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 19

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs visual decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Previous (current vs subacute) Δ TT
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	No (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function; TT not optimal measure of overall language function)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG ↑ R IFG
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 20

First level contrast	Verb generation vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Previous (current vs subacute) Δ TT
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	No (current activation will reflect not just prior recovery, but also current language function; TT not optimal measure of overall language function)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	7
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior language region (IFG); (2) L posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (3) R anterior language region (IFG); (4) R posterior language region (AG, SMG, STG, MTG); (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI; (7) whole network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	WFU pickatlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG ↑ R IFG
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Papoutsi et al. (2011)

Reference

Authors	Papoutsi M, Stamatakis EA, Griffiths J, Marslen-Wilson WD, Tyler LK
Title	Is left fronto-temporal connectivity essential for syntax? Effective connectivity, tractography and performance in left-hemisphere damaged patients
Reference	NeuroImage 2011; 58: 656-664
PMID	21722742
DOI	10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.036

Participants

Language	UK English
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	14
Number of control participants	15
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	Yes (reanalysis of same dataset from Tyler et al. (2011))
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 56 ± 12 years, range 35-77 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 11; females: 3)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 14; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (mean 8 ± 9 years, range 2-40 years)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Not at all
Language evaluation	Sentence-picture matching, grammaticality judgment, lexical decision, phonological discrimination, semantic categorization, sentence repetition, word repetition
Aphasia severity	Not stated
Aphasia type	Not stated
First stroke only?	Not stated
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	1 patient had post-surgical haematoma rather than stroke (per Tyler et al., 2011)

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No (length of stimuli not described)
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	1059
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	No (lacks explanation of event durations)
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")	None	42	N/A	N/A
listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")	None	42	N/A	N/A
listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate")	None	42	N/A	N/A
listening to filler sentences	None	126	N/A	N/A
listening to "musical rain"	None	42	N/A	N/A
rest	None	implicit baseline	N/A	N/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 condition	Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate")
Control condition	Listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Yes
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	Control data in Tyler et al. (2011); L frontal and temporal
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between subordinate and dominant sentences (dominance effect)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
Software	SPM8
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	Based on GRFT
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L insula ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ L mid temporal
Findings notes	—

Complex analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Modulation of L IFG connectivity by dominance effect
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	A PPI analysis was carried out with the L IFG as the seed region. Correlations were computed between voxelwise modulation of connectivity with this region, and a behavioral measure of syntactic processing, which was the dominance effect: the difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between subordinate and dominant sentences. The resultant SPM was thresholded at voxelwise p < .01 (CDT), then corrected for multiple corrections based on cluster extent and GRFT using SPM8.
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Patients with better syntactic performance had more connectivity from the L IFG seed region to L pMTG and adjacent areas (including the insula); pMTG also significant at voxelwise p < .001 in Figure 2B, corrected for multiple comparisons with GRFT

Complex analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Modulation of L pMTG connectivity by dominance effect
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	A similar PPI analysis was carried out with the L pMTG as the seed region. Thresholding was the same as in the previous analysis.
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Sebastian & Kiran (2011)

Reference

Authors	Sebastian R, Kiran S.
Title	Task-modulated neural activation patterns in chronic stroke patients with aphasia
Reference	Aphasiology 2011; 25: 927-951
PMID	N/A
DOI	10.1080/02687038.2011.557436

Participants

Language	US English
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	8
Number of control participants	8
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (range 40-79 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No (males: 5; females: 3; control sex not stated, but reported to be matched)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 8; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (mean 48.3 months, range 30-78 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	WAB, BNT, portions of PALPA, PPT, CLQT
Aphasia severity	AQ range 74.0-97.8
Aphasia type	6 anomic, 2 recovered
First stroke only?	Not stated
Stroke type	Mixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Range 23-45 cc
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	No (GE 3 Tesla; model not stated)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No* (moderate limitation) (control events took place in the inter-trial interval between language events, and may have been systematically confounded in timing; the total number of functional images acquired is not stated)
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	not stated
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	No (only correct trials are included but it is not stated how incorrect trials were modeled; in general, it is not stated whether the control events were modeled at all)
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
picture naming	Word (overt)	60	Yes	Yes
viewing scrambled images and saying "pass"	Word (overt)	60	Unknown	Unknown
semantic decision	Button press	48	Yes	Yes
visual decision	Button press	48	Unknown	Unknown

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

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

Language condition	Picture naming (correct trials)
Control condition	Viewing scrambled images and saying "pass"
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy/RT not reported for control task
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	No
Control activation notes	Reporting is selective, but appears mostly bilateral with slight L-lateralization of language areas
Contrast notes	—

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

Language condition	Semantic decision (correct trials)
Control condition	Visual decision
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy/RT not reported for control task
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	Clearly lateralized frontal activation, but very modest temporal activation
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "pass"
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Lesion volume
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	4
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG (oper/tri); (2) L posterior perisylvian (pSTG, pMTG, AG, SMG); (3) R IFG (oper/tri); (4) R posterior perisylvian (pSTG, pMTG, AG, SMG); (5) language network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Harvard–Oxford atlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ R supramarginal gyrus ↑ R angular gyrus ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ LI (language network)
Findings notes	Larger lesions were associated with more R posterior perisylvian activation

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Semantic decision (correct trials) vs visual decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Lesion volume
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Mixed
How many ROIs are there?	4
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L IFG (oper/tri); (2) L posterior perisylvian (pSTG, pMTG, AG, SMG); (3) R IFG (oper/tri); (4) R posterior perisylvian (pSTG, pMTG, AG, SMG); (5) language network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Harvard–Oxford atlas
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

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

 

Szaflarski et al. (2011)

Reference

Authors	Szaflarski JP, Vannest J, Wu SW, DiFrancesco MW, Banks C, Gilbert DL
Title	Excitatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation induces improvements in chronic post-stroke aphasia
Reference	Med Sci Monit 2011; 17: CR132-139
PMID	21358599
DOI	10.12659/msm.881446

Participants

Language	US English
Inclusion criteria	Moderate aphasia, L MCA
Number of individuals with aphasia	8 (plus 3 excluded: 2 metallic artifact; 1 seizure at time of stroke)
Number of control participants	0
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 54.4 ± 12.7 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 4; females: 4)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 8; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (mean 5.3 ± 3.6 years, > 12 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity and type
Language evaluation	BNT; phonemic fluency, semantic fluency, complex ideation from BDAE, PPVT, communicative activities log
Aphasia severity	Moderate
Aphasia type	4 Broca's, 3 anomic, 1 anomic/conduction
First stroke only?	Not stated
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—chronic treatment
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~2 weeks later
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	RTMS to residual activation near Broca's area, 5 sessions/week, 2 weeks
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Varian Unity INOVA 4 T)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No (timing not clear, because previous studies cited are not all identical in terms of timing)
Design type	Block
Total images acquired	not stated
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	No (lesion impact not addressed)
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

No (based on Binder et al. (1997), but details not reported)

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
semantic decision	Button press	not stated	Unknown	No
tone decision	Button press	not stated	Unknown	No

Conditions notes

Group 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 condition	Semantic decision
Control condition	Tone decision
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Appear similar
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Yes
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	Control data in Kim et al. (2011) and Szaflarski et al. (2008); L frontal and temporal, plus other semantic regions
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (patients improved only on semantic fluency)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, matched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Language and control tasks both matched
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	in-house
Voxelwise p	.05
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	The figure shows a cutoff of z > 10, which would not correspond to p < .05; increases and decreases in Figure 3 do not accord with the data from T1 and T2 in Figure 2, raising concerns about the implementation of the analyses; there is no explicit description of the second level analysis
Findings	↑ L IFG ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L orbitofrontal ↑ L inferior parietal lobule ↑ L supramarginal gyrus ↑ L angular gyrus ↑ L precuneus ↑ L occipital ↑ L anterior cingulate ↑ L basal ganglia ↑ L hippocampus/MTL ↑ R dorsal precentral ↑ R precuneus ↑ R occipital ↑ R basal ganglia ↑ R hippocampus/MTL ↓ R insula ↓ R supramarginal gyrus ↓ R posterior STG
Findings notes	Based on a combination of coordinates in Table 2, and Figure 3

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (patients improved only on semantic fluency)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, matched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Language and control tasks both matched
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	3
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) frontal LI; (2) temporal LI; (3) language network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	T1 LI (temporal) is reported to be negative, which does not accord with the voxelwise analysis in Figure 2; increases and decreases in Figure 3 do not accord with the data from T1 and T2 in Figure 2, raising concerns about the implementation of the analyses
Findings	↑ LI (language network) ↑ LI (frontal) ↑ LI (temporal)
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Tyler et al. (2011)

Reference

Authors	Tyler LK, Marslen-Wilson WD, Randall B, Wright P, Devereux BJ, Zhuang J, Papoutsi M, Stamatakis EA
Title	Left inferior frontal cortex and syntax: function, structure and behaviour in patients with left hemisphere damage
Reference	Brain 2011; 134: 415-431
PMID	21278407
DOI	10.1093/brain/awq369

Participants

Language	UK English
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	14
Number of control participants	15
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	Yes (not stated, but it seems like most of the patients also participated in Tyler et al. (2010))
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 56 years, range 34-77 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 11; females: 3)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 14; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (mean 7 years, > 1.5 years)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Not at all
Language evaluation	Sentence-picture matching, grammaticality judgment, lexical decision, phonological discrimination, semantic categorization, sentence repetition, word repetition
Aphasia severity	Not stated
Aphasia type	Not stated
First stroke only?	Not stated
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	1 patient had post-surgical haematoma rather than stroke

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No (run length not stated; length of stimuli not described)
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	not stated but 1059 per Papoutsi et al. (2011)
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	No (lacks explanation of event durations)
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")	None	42	N/A	N/A
listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")	None	42	N/A	N/A
listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate")	None	42	N/A	N/A
listening to filler sentences	None	126	N/A	N/A
listening to "musical rain"	None	42	N/A	N/A
rest	None	implicit baseline	N/A	N/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 condition	Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate)
Control condition	Listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	L frontal and parietal; R frontal (but L > R); no L temporal
Contrast notes	—

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

Language condition	Listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")
Control condition	Listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	L frontal and parietal; no L temporal
Contrast notes	—

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

Language condition	Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate")
Control condition	Listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Yes
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	L frontal, temporal and parietal, R frontal (but L > R)
Contrast notes	—

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

Language condition	Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate")
Control condition	Listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Yes
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	L frontal and temporal
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 423
Findings	↓ L IFG
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 423
Findings	↓ L IFG
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 423
Findings	↓ L IFG
Findings notes	Lack of patient activation in pMTG implied in text, but this activation looks fairly similar in patients and controls (c.f. Figure 3C vs 2C)

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 423
Findings	↓ L IFG ↓ L posterior MTG
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 5

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Performance on acceptability judgment task (difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between ambiguous and unambiguous sentences)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	Based on GRFT
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars triangularis ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis ↑ R insula ↑ R mid temporal
Findings notes	Also L pMTG but this did not reach significance

Voxelwise analysis 6

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Performance on sentence-picture matching task
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	30 (units not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars orbitalis ↑ L posterior MTG ↑ R insula ↑ R posterior STG ↑ R mid temporal
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 7

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Performance on word monitoring task
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	.05
Cluster extent	10 (units not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars orbitalis ↑ L posterior MTG ↑ R insula ↑ R mid temporal
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 8

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between subordinate and dominant sentences (dominance effect)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Plausible fronto-temporo-parietal language regions
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	Based on GRFT
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Performance on acceptability judgment task (difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between ambiguous and unambiguous sentences)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	3
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) IFG pars opercularis; (2) IFG pars triangularis; (3) IFG pars orbitalis
How are the ROI(s) defined?	AAL
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars triangularis ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) vs listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous")
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Difference in percentage of unacceptable judgments between subordinate and dominant sentences (dominance effect)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Anatomical
How many ROIs are there?	3
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) IFG pars opercularis; (2) IFG pars triangularis; (3) IFG pars orbitalis
How are the ROI(s) defined?	AAL
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

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

 

Weiduschat et al. (2011)

Reference

Authors	Weiduschat N, Thiel A, Rubi-Fessen I, Hartmann A, Kessler J, Merl P, Kracht L, Rommel T, Heiss WD
Title	Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in aphasic stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study
Reference	Stroke 2011; 42: 409-415
PMID	21164121
DOI	10.1161/strokeaha.110.597864

Participants

Language	German
Inclusion criteria	Age 55-85
Number of individuals with aphasia	10 (plus 4 excluded: 3 malfunction of TMS device or claustrophobia; 1 recovered nearly completely prior to intervention)
Number of control participants	0
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (range 59-83 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 5; females: 5)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 10; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (range 18-97 days; patients at different subacute stages of recovery)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Type only
Language evaluation	AAT
Aphasia severity	T1: TT range 0-45 errors; T2: TT range 0-44 errors
Aphasia type	T1: 5 Wernicke's, 2 Broca's, 2 global, 1 amnestic fluent; T2: not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Extent and location
Lesion extent	Range 0.7-88.9 cc
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—mixed
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: pre-treatment/subacute (range 18-97 days post onset); T2: post-treatment, ~2 weeks later
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Individualized SLT, 45 minutes/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks; 6 patients underwent rTMS to the R IFG pars triangularis; 4 received vertex (sham) rTMS
Is the scanner described?	Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	8
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
verb generation	Word (covert)	4	Unknown	Unknown
rest	None	4	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

Contrast 1: verb generation vs rest

Language condition	Verb generation
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	Control data in Herholz et al. (1996); insufficient to fully validate the contrast
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Verb generation vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1 (regardless of rTMS)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Laterality indi(ces)
How many ROIs are there?	3
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) IFG LI; (2) superior temporal LI; (3) SMA LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Verb generation vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia treated with rTMS (n = 6) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Laterality indi(ces)
How many ROIs are there?	3
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) IFG LI; (2) superior temporal LI; (3) SMA LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 3

First level contrast	Verb generation vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	(Aphasia with R IFG rTMS (n = 6) T2 vs T1) vs (with sham rTMS (n = 4) T2 vs T1)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Laterality indi(ces)
How many ROIs are there?	3
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) IFG LI; (2) superior temporal LI; (3) SMA LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ LI (frontal)
Findings notes	IFG LI was stable in the stimulation group, but shifted to the R in the sham group, yielding a significant difference between groups

ROI analysis 4

First level contrast	Verb generation vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1 (regardless of rTMS)
Covariate	Δ AAT total score
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Laterality indi(ces)
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	IFG LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
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

Authors	Allendorfer JB, Kissela BM, Holland SK, Szaflarski JP
Title	Different patterns of language activation in post-stroke aphasia are detected by overt and covert versions of the verb generation fMRI task
Reference	Med Sci Monit 2012; 18: CR135-147
PMID	22367124
DOI	10.12659/msm.882518

Participants

Language	US English
Inclusion criteria	MCA; moderate-severe aphasia; mRS ≤ 3
Number of individuals with aphasia	16
Number of control participants	32
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	Yes ("part of a larger ongoing study", may overlap with other studies from this group)
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 54.4 ± 9.5 years, range 38-78 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 9; females: 7)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 16; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (mean 3.7 ± 3.5 years, range 0.5-11.4 years)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity and type
Language evaluation	TT, PPVT, BNT, semantic and phonemic fluency, complex ideation subtest of BDAE
Aphasia severity	Moderate-severe; TT mean 25.5 ± 11.3; unclear how to reconcile moderate-severe severity with mostly anomic aphasia
Aphasia type	Mostly anomic with some non-fluent
First stroke only?	Not stated
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	Range 2.8-248.9 cc
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	No (Phillips 3 Tesla; model not stated)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	Mixed
Total images acquired	435
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	No (no description of HRF model, which is important given sparse sampling design)
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	No (lesion impact not addressed)
Imaging notes	sparse sampling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
verb generation (overt, event-related)	Multiple words (overt)	15	Yes	Unknown
verb generation (covert, event-related)	Multiple words (covert)	15	Unknown	Unknown
noun repetition (event-related)	Multiple words (overt)	15	Yes	Unknown
verb generation (covert, block)	Multiple words (covert)	10	Unknown	Unknown
finger tapping (block)	Other	10	Unknown	Unknown

Conditions notes

Given 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 condition	Verb generation (covert, block)
Control condition	Finger tapping (block)
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Yes
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	Strongly lateralized frontal and temporal activation
Contrast notes	—

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

Language condition	Verb generation (overt, event-related)
Control condition	Noun repetition (event-related)
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	Somewhat L-lateralized frontal, temporal and parietal activations, but also extensive midline activation
Contrast notes	—

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

Language condition	Verb generation (overt, event-related)
Control condition	Verb generation (covert, event-related)
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	N/A
Control activation notes	Bilateral speech motor activations, but also extensive midline activation
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Verb generation (covert, block) vs finger tapping (block)
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Laterality indi(ces)
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) frontal LI; (2) temporal LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ LI (temporal)
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Verb generation (overt, event-related) vs noun repetition (event-related)
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Patients less accurate and produced less responses on both conditions, but the difference between groups was greater for verb generation
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Laterality indi(ces)
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) frontal LI; (2) temporal LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ LI (frontal)
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 3

First level contrast	Verb generation (overt, event-related) vs verb generation (covert, event-related)
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Overt performance differed, so covert performance probably did too
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Laterality indi(ces)
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) frontal LI; (2) temporal LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	Lack of lateralization in controls makes this analysis difficult to interpret

ROI analysis 4

First level contrast	Verb generation (overt, event-related) vs noun repetition (event-related)
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Overt verb generation accuracy
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Accuracy is covariate
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	3
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L MTG; (2) L SFG/CG; (3) left MFG
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Regions activated by the contrast of overt verb generation vs noun repetition in patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 5

First level contrast	Verb generation (overt, event-related) vs verb generation (covert, event-related)
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	Overt verb generation accuracy
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Accuracy is covariate
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	2
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) R insula/IFG; (2) R STG
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Prominent R hemisphere activations for the contrast of overt and covert verb generation in patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

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

 

Fridriksson, Hubbard, et al. (2012)

Reference

Authors	Fridriksson J, Hubbard HI, Hudspeth SG, Holland AL, Bonilha L, Fromm D, Rorden C
Title	Speech entrainment enables patients with Broca's aphasia to produce fluent speech
Reference	Brain 2012; 135: 3815-3829
PMID	23250889
DOI	10.1093/brain/aws301

Participants

Language	US English
Inclusion criteria	Broca's aphasia
Number of individuals with aphasia	10 (plus 3 excluded: 1 due to a metal implant; 2 for severely non-fluent speech)
Number of control participants	20
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 56.9 ± 9.2 years, range 45-75 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No (males: 9; females: 4; control sex not matched)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 12; left: 1)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (mean 63.8 ± 64.3 months, range 10-261 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	WAB, BNT, AoS from ABA
Aphasia severity	AQ mean 48.5 ± 20.6, range 20.9-73.5
Aphasia type	Broca's
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	Demographic data includes excluded patients

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	No (Siemens 3 Tesla; model not stated)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No* (moderate limitation) (it appears that each of the three conditions was presented in a separate run)
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	180?
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	No (not described clearly)
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	sparse sampling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

No (rest condition implied but not described)

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment)	Sentence (overt)	30 (?)	Yes	Unknown
listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences	Sentence (overt)	30 (?)	Yes	Unknown
listening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouth	None	30 (?)	N/A	N/A
rest	None	implicit baseline	N/A	N/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 condition	Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment)
Control condition	Listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Behavioral data outside the scanner suggest not matched, but in-scanner behavioral data not reported
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	No
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	No
Control activation notes	Control and patient data are combined; this contrast activates bilateral anterior insula and posterior MTG, slightly more extensive on the L
Contrast notes	—

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

Language condition	Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment)
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	Rest condition implied but not explicitly described

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

Language condition	Listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	Rest condition implied but not explicitly described

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

Language condition	Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouth
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	Rest condition implied but not explicitly described

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No** (major limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia T1 vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Unclear or not stated
Software	FSL (FEAT 5.98)
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Thresholding not stated
Findings	↑ L angular gyrus ↓ L anterior temporal
Findings notes	Based on coordinates in Table 2

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Unclear or not stated
Software	FSL (FEAT 5.98)
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Thresholding not stated
Findings	↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L anterior cingulate ↑ R precuneus ↑ R occipital ↑ R hippocampus/MTL ↓ L supramarginal gyrus
Findings notes	Some labels changed based on coordinates

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrast	Listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Unclear or not stated
Software	FSL (FEAT 5.98)
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Thresholding not stated
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrast	Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouth vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no behavioral measure
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Unclear or not stated
Software	FSL (FEAT 5.98)
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Thresholding not stated
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia T1 vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	N/A, no timeable task
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	6
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) L anterior insula/IFG pars orbitalis; (2) R anterior insula/IFG pars orbitalis; (3) Broca's area; (4) L MTG; (5) L BA 37; (6) R BA 37
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Regions activated in both groups considered together
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	There were no interactions of group by condition; two regions showed main effects of group but this is not pertinent to the contrast
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Fridriksson, Richardson, et al. (2012)

Reference

Authors	Fridriksson J, Richardson JD, Fillmore P, Cai B
Title	Left hemisphere plasticity and aphasia recovery
Reference	NeuroImage 2012; 60: 854-863
PMID	22227052
DOI	10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.057

Participants

Language	US English
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	29 (plus 1 excluded: contraindications to MRI)
Number of control participants	14
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	Yes (26 of 30 patients were included in Fridriksson (2010))
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 59.2 years, range 33-81 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No (males: 14; females: 16; not stated for controls)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (mean 51.1 months, range 6-350 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity and type
Language evaluation	WAB
Aphasia severity	AQ mean 57.9 ± 25.8, range 17.2-95.2
Aphasia type	13 Broca's, 10 anomic, 3 conduction, 2 Wernicke's, 1 global, 1 transcortical motor
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Mixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Range 7.7-420.5 cc
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	Demographic data includes excluded patient

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—chronic treatment
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment/~4 weeks later; note that there were two separate sessions per time point, as well as another two sessions midway through treatment that are not analyzed in this paper
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Anomia treatment using a cueing hierarchy, 3 hours/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks, with a 1-week gap between the two weeks
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No (timing of stimuli within the silent periods is unclear)
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	120
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	sparse sampling; 26 patients were also scanned with arterial spin labelling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
picture naming	Word (overt)	80	Yes	Unknown
viewing abstract pictures	None	40	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

Contrast 1: picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures

Language condition	Picture naming
Control condition	Viewing abstract pictures
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	No
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Somewhat
Control activation notes	Control data in Fridriksson et al. (2007); motor activations are prominent; there is some L frontal activation but little temporal activation in either hemisphere
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No* (moderate limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ picture naming accuracy
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Accuracy is covariate
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	3
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Change in perilesional non-language regions positively correlated with improvement in accuracy

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ (decrease in) semantic errors
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	3
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Change in undamaged non-perilesional language regions negatively correlated with decrease in semantic errors

ROI analysis 3

First level contrast	Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ (decrease in) phonological paraphasias
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	3
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Change in perilesional language regions, and change in undamaged non-perilesional language regions, negatively correlated with decrease in phonological paraphasias

ROI analysis 4

First level contrast	Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T1
Covariate	Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) picture naming accuracy
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	3
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 5

First level contrast	Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T1
Covariate	Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1, decrease in) semantic errors
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	3
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Change in perilesional language regions correlated with decrease in phonological paraphasias

ROI analysis 6

First level contrast	Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T1
Covariate	Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1, decrease in) phonological paraphasias
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Other
How many ROIs are there?	3
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

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

Authors	Marcotte K, Adrover-Roig D, Damien B, de Préaumont M, Généreux S, Hubert M, Ansaldo AI
Title	Therapy-induced neuroplasticity in chronic aphasia
Reference	Neuropsychologia 2012; 50: 1776-1786
PMID	22564481
DOI	10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.04.001

Participants

Language	Canadian French
Inclusion criteria	Moderate-severe aphasia; anomia
Number of individuals with aphasia	9
Number of control participants	0
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 62 ± 6.0 years, range 50-67 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 5; females: 4)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 9; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (mean 110.2 ± 92.5 months, range 50-300 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Comprehensive battery
Language evaluation	Montreal-Toulouse Aphasia Battery, picture naming
Aphasia severity	Moderate-severe
Aphasia type	7 Broca's, 1 Broca's + AoS, 1 Wernicke's + AoS
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Range 14.6-295.8 cc
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—chronic treatment
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, 3-6 weeks later (after 80% performance on trained items, or 6 weeks)
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Semantic feature analysis, 1 hour/day, 3 days/week, 3-6 weeks
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No (total images acquired not stated)
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	not stated
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	No (lesion impact not addressed)
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
picture naming (already known items)	Word (overt)	20	Yes	Yes
picture naming (trained items)	Word (overt)	20	No	No
picture naming (untrained items)	Word (overt)	40	No	No
viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"	Word (overt)	20	Yes	Yes
rest	None	implicit baseline	N/A	N/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 condition	Picture naming (T1: known items; T2: trained items; correct trials)
Control condition	Viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	Different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained

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

Language condition	Picture naming (known items, correct trials)
Control condition	Viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	Different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained

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

Language condition	Picture naming (trained items, correct trials)
Control condition	Viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	Different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Picture naming (T1: known items; T2: trained items; correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 1780; different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained
Findings	↑ L supramarginal gyrus ↓ L dorsal precentral ↓ L posterior MTG
Findings notes	Labels based on figures rather than text

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Picture naming (known items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T1
Covariate	Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) naming of trained items
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	.005
Cluster extent	10 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	Different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained
Findings	↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ L somato-motor ↑ L anterior cingulate ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R somato-motor ↑ R thalamus
Findings notes	Labels based on figures and text

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrast	Picture naming (trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "baba"
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2
Covariate	Previous Δ (T2 vs T1) naming of trained items
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	No (T2 activation not an appropriate measure of treatment-induced recovery because it reflects T2 performance)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, correct trials only
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	.005
Cluster extent	10 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	Different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained
Findings	↑ L somato-motor
Findings notes	Label based on figure

Notes

Excluded analyses

Individual analyses of participants with more and less successful recovery

 

Schofield et al. (2012)

Reference

Authors	Schofield TM, Penny WD, Stephan KE, Crinion JT, Thompson AJ, Price CJ, Leff AP
Title	Changes in auditory feedback connections determine the severity of speech processing deficits after stroke
Reference	J Neurosci 2012; 32: 4260-4270
PMID	22442088
DOI	10.1523/jneurosci.4670-11.2012

Participants

Language	UK English
Inclusion criteria	Comprehension deficit
Number of individuals with aphasia	20 (plus 1 excluded: excessive head motion)
Number of control participants	26
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	Yes (patients recruited from database so may have participated in prior studies from this group, but not stated explicitly)
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (range 35.8-90.3 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No (males: 16; females: 4; control sex not stated)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (mean 3.5 years, range 0.6-8.6 years)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity only
Language evaluation	CAT
Aphasia severity	11 patients (plus one excluded) had moderate comprehension impairments, 9 had severe comprehension impairments; this distribution was bimodal
Aphasia type	Not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Range 24.2-403.6 cc
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	Demographic data includes excluded patient

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens Sonata 1.5 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	Block
Total images acquired	488
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (mostly whole brain but convexity or cerebellum excluded in some participants)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
listening to word pairs, speaker gender judgment	Button press	18	Yes	Unknown
listening to reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment	Button press	18	Yes	Unknown
rest	None	40 (?)	N/A	N/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 condition	Listening to word pairs or reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	No
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	No
Control activation notes	Control data in Leff et al. (2008); auditory contrast, not intended to be language contrast
Contrast notes	—

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

Language condition	Listening to word pairs, speaker gender judgment
Control condition	Listening to reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Behavioral data not separated by condition
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Somewhat
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	Control data in Leff et al. (2008); L-lateralized activation of posterior STS
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

No** (major limitation) (see specific limitation(s) below)

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to word pairs or reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Moderate aphasia (n = 11) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	SPM8
Voxelwise p	.001
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L Heschl's gyrus
Findings notes	Structurally, HG was not significantly damaged in this group

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to word pairs or reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Severe aphasia (n = 9) vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Mixed** (major limitation)
Software	SPM8
Voxelwise p	MGB: SVC; elsewhere: .001
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L posterior STG ↓ L Heschl's gyrus ↓ L thalamus
Findings notes	Specifically: PT, HG and MGB; structurally, the PT and HG were significantly damaged, but not the MGB

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrast	Listening to word pairs or reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Severe (n = 9) vs moderate (n = 11) aphasia
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	SPM8
Voxelwise p	.001
Cluster extent	None
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L posterior STG
Findings notes	Specifically, PT; structurally, severe patients had more damage in HG and PT

Notes

Excluded analyses

Intelligibility 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

Authors	Wright P, Stamatakis EA, Tyler LK
Title	Differentiating hemispheric contributions to syntax and semantics in patients with left-hemisphere lesions
Reference	J Neurosci 2012; 32: 8149-8157
PMID	22699896
DOI	10.1523/jneurosci.0485-12.2012

Participants

Language	UK English
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	21
Number of control participants	21
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	Yes (unclear how many, if any, patients were included in previous studies from this group; design is identical to Tyler et al. (2010))
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (mean 57.4 ± 12.5 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 15; females: 6)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 21; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (mean 6.5 ± 7.5 years, > 1.4 years)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Not at all
Language evaluation	Sentence-picture matching
Aphasia severity	Not stated
Aphasia type	Not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	3 of the 21 patients were not stroke, but were post resective surgery

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No* (moderate limitation) (there was only one block per condition per run, so condition could be confounded with low frequency drift; also, the length of the sentences is not stated so it is unclear how well the HRF peak aligns with the sparse acquisitions)
Design type	Block
Total images acquired	69
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	sparse sampling

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
listening to normal sentences and detecting a target word	Button press	2	Yes	Yes
listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word	Button press	2	Yes	Yes
listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word	Button press	2	Yes	Yes
listening to "musical rain" and detecting a period of white noise	Button press	2	Yes	Yes
rest	None	2	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

Auditory 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 condition	Listening to normal sentences and detecting a target word
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	No
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	No
Control activation notes	Bilateral superior temporal, sensorimotor and visual
Contrast notes	—

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

Language condition	Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and detecting a target word vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia vs control
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, matched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Software	SPM5
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ L Heschl's gyrus ↓ L mid temporal
Findings notes	At a more stringent threshold of p < .001, with correction for multiple comparisons based on GRFT and cluster extent, only L HG showed reduced activity in patients

Complex analysis 1

First level contrast	Listening to normal sentences and detecting a target word vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	See statistical details
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Joint ICA was performed on structural and functional contrast images for each of the two contrasts using FIT 2.0b. Seven components were derived, of which 2 were further investigated since their loadings correlated with relevant behavioral measures. Functional components were thresholded at p < .001, cluster-corrected for multiple comparisons, minimum cluster extent = 1.27 cc. Component 1 was considered a "semantics component" because it correlated with the semantic behavioral measure and not with either of the two syntactic measures. This component did not have any anatomical aspect to it. Component 2 was considered a "syntax component" because it correlated with both syntactic behavioral measures and not with the semantic measure. This conceptualization seems somewhat speculative, given that WPE NP and WPE AP are rather indirect measures of syntactic and semantic processing. Component 2 involved damage to left frontal and insular cortex, and underlying dorsal white matter.
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Contrast 1 loaded primarily on the R STG for component 1 (the "semantics component") and on the L ITG for component 2 (the "syntax component").

Complex analysis 2

First level contrast	Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia
Covariate	See statistical details
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Complex
Statistical details	Joint ICA was performed on structural and functional contrast images for each of the two contrasts using FIT 2.0b. Seven components were derived, of which 2 were further investigated since their loadings correlated with relevant behavioral measures. Functional components were thresholded at p < .001, cluster-corrected for multiple comparisons, minimum cluster extent = 1.27 cc. Component 1 was considered a "semantics component" because it correlated with the semantic behavioral measure and not with either of the two syntactic measures. This component did not have any anatomical aspect to it. Component 2 was considered a "syntax component" because it correlated with both syntactic behavioral measures and not with the semantic measure. This conceptualization seems somewhat speculative, given that WPE NP and WPE AP are rather indirect measures of syntactic and semantic processing. Component 2 involved damage to left frontal and insular cortex, and underlying dorsal white matter.
Findings	Other
Findings notes	Contrast 2 loaded primarily on the R posterior STG for component 1 (the "semantics component") and on the L posterior STG and L IFG for component 2 (the "syntax component").

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Szaflarski et al. (2013)

Reference

Authors	Szaflarski JP, Allendorfer JB, Banks C, Vannest J, Holland SK
Title	Recovered vs. not-recovered from post-stroke aphasia: the contributions from the dominant and non-dominant hemispheres
Reference	Restor Neurol Neurosci 2013; 31: 347-360
PMID	23482065
DOI	10.3233/rnn-120267

Participants

Language	US English
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	27
Number of control participants	0
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (recovered: mean 50 ± 13 years; non-recovered: mean 51 ± 13 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 15; females: 12)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 27; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (recovered: mean 2.1 ± 2.1 years; non-recovered: mean 4.9 ± 3.1 years)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity only
Language evaluation	TT, BNT, semantic fluency, phonemic fluency, PPVT, complex ideation subtest of BDAE
Aphasia severity	Recovered: TT mean 43 ± 1, ≥ 41; non-recovered: TT mean 23 ± 12, < 41
Aphasia type	Not stated
First stroke only?	Not stated
Stroke type	Not stated
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Recovered: median 9.2 cc, range 2.2-26.5 cc; non-recovered: median 74 cc, range 5.1-206.0 cc
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Cross-sectional
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	—
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	—
Is the scanner described?	No (Phillips 3 Tesla; model not stated)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	Block
Total images acquired	330
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
semantic decision	Button press	10	No	No
tone decision	Button press	12	No	No

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

Contrast 1: semantic decision vs tone decision

Language condition	Semantic decision
Control condition	Tone decision
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Accuracy appears similar in the non-recovered group, but not in the recovered group
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Yes
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Yes
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Yes
Control activation notes	Control data in Kim et al. (2011) and Szaflarski et al. (2008); L frontal and temporal, plus other semantic regions
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia not recovered (n = 18) vs recovered (n = 9)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Interaction of group by condition not reported; non-recovered patients were significantly less accurate only on the semantic decision condition, but they actually showed a smaller difference between conditions than the recovered patients
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on 3dClustSim
Software	AFNI
Voxelwise p	.05
Cluster extent	4.16 cc
Statistical details	Cluster-defining threshold (CDT) p < 0.05 too lenient
Findings	↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ L superior parietal ↑ L cerebellum ↑ R cerebellum ↓ R posterior STG
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
Covariate	BNT
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	4
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs
Correction for multiple comparisons	Familywise error (FWE)
Statistical details	Circular because defined based on recovered status
Findings	↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
Covariate	Semantic fluency
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	4
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs
Correction for multiple comparisons	Familywise error (FWE)
Statistical details	Circular because defined based on recovered status
Findings	↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 3

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
Covariate	Single word comprehension (PPVT)
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	4
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs
Correction for multiple comparisons	Familywise error (FWE)
Statistical details	Circular because defined based on recovered status
Findings	↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 4

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
Covariate	BDAE complex ideation subtest
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	4
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs
Correction for multiple comparisons	Familywise error (FWE)
Statistical details	Circular because defined based on recovered status
Findings	↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 5

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
Covariate	Phonemic fluency
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	4
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs
Correction for multiple comparisons	Familywise error (FWE)
Statistical details	Circular because defined based on recovered status
Findings	↓ R posterior STG
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 6

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered)
Covariate	Semantic decision accuracy
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Accuracy is covariate
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Functional
How many ROIs are there?	4
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus
How are the ROI(s) defined?	Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs
Correction for multiple comparisons	Familywise error (FWE)
Statistical details	Circular because defined based on recovered status
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Thiel et al. (2013)

Reference

Authors	Thiel A, Hartmann A, Rubi-Fessen I, Anglade C, Kracht L, Weiduschat N, Kessler J, Rommel T, Heiss WD
Title	Effects of noninvasive brain stimulation on language networks and recovery in early poststroke aphasia
Reference	Stroke 2013; 44: 2240-2246
PMID	23813984
DOI	10.1161/strokeaha.111.000574

Participants

Language	German
Inclusion criteria	—
Number of individuals with aphasia	24 (plus 6 excluded: 4 did not tolerate MRI or PET scans; 2 TMS device was defective)
Number of control participants	0
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (rTMS group: mean 69.8 ± 8.0 years; sham group: mean 71.2 ± 7.8 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 24; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (rTMS group: mean 37.5 ± 18.5 days; sham group: mean 50.6 ± 22.6 days)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity and type
Language evaluation	AAT
Aphasia severity	T1: rTMS group: AAT sum of scores mean 251.5 ± 32.4; sham group: mean 251.1 ± 39.5; T2 not stated
Aphasia type	T1: rTMS group: 7 Wernicke's, 3 amnestic, 2 global, 1 Broca's; sham group: 5 Wernicke's, 3 Broca's, 2 global, 1 amnestic; T2: not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Individual lesions
Lesion extent	RTMS group: 233 ± 197 cc; sham group: 244 ± 243 cc; lesion extent in images appears much smaller than the stated volumes
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	PET (rCBF)
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—mixed
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: pre-treatment/subacute (rTMS group: mean 37.5 ± 18.5 days post onset; sham group: mean 50.6 ± 22.6 days post onset); T2 post-treatment, ~2.5 weeks later
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	RTMS group: inhibitory rTMS over the R IFG pars triangularis + SLT for 45 minutes/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks; control group: sham TMS + SLT
Is the scanner described?	Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	PET
Total images acquired	8
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	No (lesion impact not addressed)
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
verb generation	Word (overt)	4	Unknown	Unknown
rest	None	4	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

Contrast 1: verb generation vs rest

Language condition	Verb generation
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	Somewhat
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	Cites Weiduschat et al. (2011) which in turn cites Herholz et al. (1996) which provides some minimal control data
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Verb generation vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	(Aphasia with rTMS (n = 13) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with sham (n = 11) T2 vs T1)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	No direct comparison
Software	SPM8
Voxelwise p	—
Cluster extent	—
Statistical details	Qualitative comparison on p. 2244
Findings	↑ L IFG ↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG ↓ R IFG ↓ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
Findings notes	Approximate interpretation of qualitative patterns shown in Figure 3; T1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Verb generation vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	(Aphasia with rTMS (n = 13) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with sham (n = 11) T2 vs T1)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Laterality indi(ces)
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	Language network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	Actual LIs are not reported, only change in LI
Findings	↑ LI (language network)
Findings notes	T1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Verb generation vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ AAT total score
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Region of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Laterality indi(ces)
How many ROIs are there?	1
What are the ROI(s)?	Language network LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisons	One only
Statistical details	Model did not include treatment group (rTMS vs sham)
Findings	↑ LI (language network)
Findings notes	Patients who improved more showed a greater leftward shift of activation; T1 R lateralization surprising relative to other findings from this group

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Abel et al. (2014)

Reference

Authors	Abel S, Weiller C, Huber W, Willmes K
Title	Neural underpinnings for model-oriented therapy of aphasic word production
Reference	Neuropsychologia 2014; 57: 154-165
PMID	24686092
DOI	10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.03.010

Participants

Language	German
Inclusion criteria	Anomia; no severe AoS or dysarthria
Number of individuals with aphasia	14 (plus 9 excluded: 4 for ceiling performance; 5 for technical problems)
Number of control participants	0
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (median 48 years, range 35-74 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 10; females: 4)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 14; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (median 41 months, range 11-72 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Type only
Language evaluation	AAT
Aphasia severity	Not stated
Aphasia type	8 Broca's, 3 Wernicke's, 1 fluent non-classifiable, 1 global, 1 transcortical sensory
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Mixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L MCA; 2 also had ACA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—chronic treatment
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~6 weeks later (labeled T2 and T3 in paper)
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Lexical therapy, alternating between weeks with phonological and semantic treatment, 4 weeks; 60 out of the 132 items were trained
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Philips Achieva 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No* (moderate limitation) (trials too close together (~8 s) and insufficient jitter (1-3 s) for event-related design)
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	560
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	Yes
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	No (lesion impact not addressed)
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
picture naming (semantic trained items)	Word (overt)	30	Yes	Unknown
picture naming (phonological trained items)	Word (overt)	30	Yes	Unknown
picture naming (untrained items)	Word (overt)	30	Yes	Unknown
picture naming (already known items)	Word (overt)	42	Yes	Unknown
rest	None	implicit baseline	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

Contrast 1: picture naming (all conditions) vs rest

Language condition	Picture naming (all conditions)
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	But see control data reported in a subsequent paper (Abel et al., 2015)
Contrast notes	—

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

Language condition	Picture naming (trained items)
Control condition	Picture naming (untrained items)
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	No, different
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Trained items improved more than untrained items
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	—

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

Language condition	Picture naming (semantic trained items)
Control condition	Picture naming (phonological trained items)
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	Yes
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	Yes
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Yes, matched
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T1
Covariate	Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) picture naming
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Accuracy is covariate
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
Software	SPM8
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L IFG pars opercularis ↓ R basal ganglia
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ picture naming accuracy
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Accuracy is covariate
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
Software	SPM8
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L somato-motor ↑ L inferior parietal lobule ↑ L supramarginal gyrus ↑ L posterior STS ↑ L posterior MTG ↑ L occipital
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrast	Picture naming (trained items) vs picture naming (untrained items)
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Trained items improved more than untrained items
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
Software	SPM8
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L precuneus ↑ L posterior STG ↑ L Heschl's gyrus ↑ L mid temporal ↑ L posterior cingulate ↑ L thalamus ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R somato-motor ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↑ R posterior cingulate ↑ R thalamus ↑ R basal ganglia
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrast	Picture naming (semantic trained items) vs picture naming (phonological trained items)
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Yes, matched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	No differential effects for semantic vs phonological trained items
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
Software	SPM8
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ R superior parietal ↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ L somato-motor ↓ L occipital ↓ L anterior cingulate ↓ L posterior cingulate ↓ R precuneus ↓ R occipital ↓ R anterior cingulate ↓ R posterior cingulate ↓ R hippocampus/MTL
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 5

First level contrast	Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with semantic impairment T1 (n = 8) vs with phonological impairment T1 (n = 6)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
Software	SPM8
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ R IFG pars triangularis ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 6

First level contrast	Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	(Aphasia with semantic impairment (n = 8) T2 vs T1) vs (aphasia with phonological impairment (n = 6) T2 vs T1)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Phonological patients showed more improvement on trained items
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
Software	SPM8
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L somato-motor ↑ L Heschl's gyrus ↑ L anterior temporal ↑ L occipital ↑ L thalamus ↑ L basal ganglia ↑ R somato-motor ↓ L IFG pars opercularis
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 7

First level contrast	Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with semantic impairment (n = 8) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
Software	SPM8
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L basal ganglia
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 8

First level contrast	Picture naming (all conditions) vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with phonological impairment (n = 6) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	No, different
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Whole brain
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on cluster_threshold_beta
Software	SPM8
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	11 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

—

 

Benjamin et al. (2014)

Reference

Authors	Benjamin ML, Towler S, Garcia A, Park H, Sudhyadhom A, Harnish SM, McGregor KM, Zlatar Z, Reilly JJ, Rosenbek JC, Gonzalez LJ, Crosson B
Title	A behavioral manipulation engages right frontal cortex during aphasia therapy
Reference	Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2014; 28: 545-553
PMID	24407914
DOI	10.1177/1545968313517754

Participants

Language	US English
Inclusion criteria	"at least minimal evidence of non-fluent output"; lesion including precentral gyrus or underlying white matter
Number of individuals with aphasia	14
Number of control participants	0
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	No
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (intention group: mean 72.1 ± 10.5 years; control group: mean 63.0 ± 9.2 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 8; females: 6)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (right: 14; left: 0)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (intention group: mean 37.4 ± 33.5 months, range 12-87 months; control group: 38.1 ± 37.4 months, range 10-112 months)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity and type
Language evaluation	WAB, BNT, PPVT
Aphasia severity	Intention group: AQ mean 65.5 ± 8.3; control group: AQ mean 71.9 ± 11.9
Aphasia type	Intention group: 4 conduction, 2 Broca's, 1 anomic; control group: 4 anomic, 1 Broca's, 1 conduction, 1 transcortical motor
First stroke only?	No
Stroke type	Mixed etiologies
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L MCA, extending frontally at least into the precentral gyrus or underlying white matter
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal?	Longitudinal—chronic treatment
If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired?	T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment; T3: 3 months after the end of treatment
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	Word finding therapy for both groups, but the intention group had to produce complex left hand movements, while the control group did not; note that groups were not directly compared in any imaging analyses
Is the scanner described?	Yes (Philips Achieva 3 Tesla)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	No (total images acquired not stated)
Design type	Event-related
Total images acquired	not stated
Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate?	Yes (whole brain)
Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate?	No (not described)
Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate?	No (not described clearly)
Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate?	No (lesion impact not addressed)
Imaging notes	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
word generation	Word (overt)	60	Unknown	Unknown
rest	None	implicit baseline	N/A	N/A

Conditions notes

—

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

Contrast 1: word generation vs rest

Language condition	Word generation
Control condition	Rest
Are the conditions matched for visual demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for auditory demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for motor demands?	No
Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands?	No
Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups?	N/A, tasks not comparable
Behavioral data notes	—
Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced?	No
Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group?	Unknown
Are activations lateralized in the control data?	Unknown
Control activation notes	—
Contrast notes	Contrast not described explicitly but there is only one possible contrast

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Word generation vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia with intention treatment (n = 7) T2 vs T1
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Yes
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Regions of interest (ROI)
ROI type	Laterality indi(ces)
How many ROIs are there?	3
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) lateral frontal LI; (2) medial frontal LI; (3) posterior perisylvian LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ LI (frontal)
Findings notes	Laterality shift for lateral frontal LI, not medial frontal LI

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Word generation vs rest
Analysis class	Longitudinal 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