Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Supplementary Table S8. Conditions

StudyConditionResponse typeRepetitionsAll groups could do?All indivs could do?Notes
Weiller et al. (1995) Verb generation Multiple words (covert) 2 Y Y Auditory presentation; pre-scan behavioral data reported
Pseudoword repetition Multiple words (covert) 2 Y Y
Rest None 2 N/A N/A
Belin et al. (1996) Word repetition with MIT-like intonation Word (overt) 1 Y U
Word repetition Word (overt) 1 Y U
Listening to words None 1 N/A N/A
Rest None 1 N/A N/A
Ohyama et al. (1996) Word repetition Word (overt) 2 Y Y 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
Counting Multiple words (overt) 2 Y Y
Rest None 2 N/A N/A
Heiss et al. (1997) Word repetition Word (overt) 1 U U No information about repetition rate, or whether repetition was overt or covert
Rest None 1 N/A N/A
Karbe et al. (1998) Word repetition Word (overt) 4 (?) U U Inability to repeat single words was an exclusion criterion, but many patients had severe aphasia so it is unclear how they would have performed
Rest None 4 (?) N/A N/A
Cao et al. (1999) Picture naming Word (covert) 4 Y Y
Viewing nonsense drawings None 4 N/A N/A
Heiss et al. (1999) Noun repetition Word (overt) 4 U U Inclusion criterion would suggest all patients could do the task, but this is not stated
Rest None 4 N/A N/A
Kessler et al. (2000) Word repetition Word (overt) 4 Y Y Inclusion criterion was applied to ensure that the task could be performed
Rest None 4 N/A N/A
Rosen et al. (2000) Word stem completion (PET) Word (overt) 4 Y Y Pseudoword reading condition not analyzed in this paper
Reading pseudowords aloud (PET) Word (overt) 4 Y N
Rest (PET) None 2 N/A N/A
Word stem completion (fMRI) Word (covert) 15-30 (?) Y Y
Rest (fMRI) None 15-30 (?) N/A N/A
Blasi et al. (2002) Word stem completion (novel items) Word (covert) 196 Y U 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.
Word stem completion (repeated items) Word (covert) 196 Y U
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Leff et al. (2002) 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
Blank et al. (2003) Propositional speech production Sentence (overt) Aphasia: 5; control: 4 Y Y 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
Counting Multiple words (overt) Aphasia: 5; control: 4 Y Y
Rest None Aphasia: 5; control: 4 N/A N/A
Cardebat et al. (2003) Word generation Word (overt) 4 Y U Participants were asked to generate words that were semantically related to binaurally presented stimuli; 2 runs involved nouns and 2 involved verbs
Rest None 2 N/A N/A
Sharp et al. (2004) Semantic decision Word (overt) Aphasia: 8; control: 4 Y Y 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
Syllable count decision Word (overt) Aphasia: 8; control: 4 Y Y
Semantic decision (noise vocoded) (control only) Word (overt) 4 (control) Y Y
Syllable count decision (noise vocoded) (control only) Word (overt) 4 (control) Y Y
Zahn et al. (2004) Phonetic decision (reversed words vs sounds) Button press 3 Y N
Lexical decision (words vs reversed words) Button press 3 Y Y
Semantic decision Button press 3 Y N
Rest None 9 N/A N/A
Crinion & Price (2005) Listening to narrative speech None 32 N/A N/A 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)
Listening to reversed speech None 8 N/A N/A
de Boissezon et al. (2005) Word generation Word (overt) 4 Y Y Nouns in two runs, verbs in two runs, combined here because they were combined in analysis
Rest None 2 N/A N/A
Connor et al. (2006) Word stem completion (novel items) Word (covert) 196 Y U 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.
Word stem completion (repeated items) Word (covert) 196 Y U
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Crinion et al. (2006) Listening to narrative speech None 6-8 N/A N/A
Listening to reversed speech None 6-8 N/A N/A
Saur et al. (2006) Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment Button press 92 U N 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
Listening to reversed speech Button press 92 Y U
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Meinzer et al. (2008) Picture naming (trained items) Word (overt) 8 Y N One participant was < 10% on trained and untrained items at T1
Picture naming (untrained items) Word (overt) 8 Y N
Rest None 16 N/A N/A
Raboyeau et al. (2008) Picture naming (native language) Word (overt) Aphasia: 4; control: 2 Y U Picture naming in native language in controls not analyzed in this paper
Picture naming (relearned foreign language) (controls only) Word (overt) 2 Y U
Rest None 2 N/A N/A
Richter et al. (2008) Reading words silently Word (covert) 4 Y U 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
Word stem completion Word (covert) 4 Y U
Rest None 10 (?) N/A N/A
de Boissezon et al. (2009) Word generation Word (overt) 4 Y Y
Rest None 2 N/A N/A
Fridriksson et al. (2009) Picture naming Word (overt) 80 Y N
Viewing scrambled images None 40 N/A N/A
Menke et al. (2009) Picture naming (trained items) Word (overt) 30 N N Patients could not name trained and untrained items at baseline
Picture naming (untrained items) Word (overt) 30 N N
Picture naming (already known items) Word (overt) 30 Y U
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Specht et al. (2009) Lexical decision (words vs pseudowords) Button press 3 Y Y 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
Lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words) Button press 3 Y Y
Tone decision Button press 3 Y Y
Warren et al. (2009) Listening to narrative speech None 6-8 N/A N/A
Listening to reversed speech None 6-8 N/A N/A
Chau et al. (2010) Answering questions from Cantonese Aphasia Battery Button press 3 U U Nature of questions not described in detail; responses involved raising left or right finger (not button press per se)
Visual decision Button press 3 U U
Fridriksson (2010) Picture naming Word (overt) 80 Y U 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
Viewing abstract pictures None 40 N/A N/A
Fridriksson et al. (2010) Picture naming Word (overt) 80 Y Y
Viewing abstract pictures None 40 N/A N/A
Sharp et al. (2010) Semantic decision Word (overt) Aphasia: 8; control: 4 Y Y 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
Syllable count decision Word (overt) Aphasia: 8; control: 4 Y U
Semantic decision (noise vocoded) (control only) Word (overt) 4 (control) Y Y
Syllable count decision (noise vocoded) (control only) Word (overt) 4 (control) Y Y
Thompson et al. (2010) Auditory sentence-picture matching (auditory; object cleft) Button press 60 N N
Auditory sentence-picture matching (subject cleft) Button press 60 Y Y
Auditory sentence-picture matching (simple past tense active) Button press 60 Y N
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Tyler et al. (2010) Listening to normal sentences and detecting a target word Button press 2 Y U 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
Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word Button press 2 Y U
Listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word Button press 2 Y U
Listening to "musical rain" and detecting a period of white noise Button press 2 Y U
Rest None 2 N/A N/A
van Oers et al. (2010) Written word-picture matching Button press 6 Y Y 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
Semantic decision Button press 6 Y Y
Verb generation Word (covert) 8 Y Y
Visual decision Button press 12 U U
Rest None 20 N/A N/A
Papoutsi et al. (2011) 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
Sebastian & Kiran (2011) Picture naming Word (overt) 60 Y Y
Viewing scrambled images and saying "pass" Word (overt) 60 U U
Semantic decision Button press 48 Y Y
Visual decision Button press 48 U U
Szaflarski et al. (2011) Semantic decision Button press Not stated U N Based on Binder et al. (1997), but details not reported; group only just above chance, unclear whether significantly better; clearly some individuals were at chance
Tone decision Button press Not stated U N
Tyler et al. (2011) 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
Weiduschat et al. (2011) Verb generation Word (covert) 4 U U
Rest None 4 N/A N/A
Allendorfer et al. (2012) Verb generation (overt, event-related) Multiple words (overt) 15 Y U 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
Verb generation (covert, event-related) Multiple words (covert) 15 U U
Noun repetition (event-related) Multiple words (overt) 15 Y U
Verb generation (covert, block) Multiple words (covert) 10 U U
Finger tapping (block) Other 10 U U
Fridriksson et al. (2012a) Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) Sentence (overt) 30 (?) Y U Rest condition implied but not described
Listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences Sentence (overt) 30 (?) Y U
Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouth None 30 (?) N/A N/A
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Fridriksson et al. (2012b) Picture naming Word (overt) 80 Y U
Viewing abstract pictures None 40 N/A N/A
Marcotte et al. (2012) Picture naming (already known items) Word (overt) 20 Y Y
Picture naming (trained items) Word (overt) 20 N N
Picture naming (untrained items) Word (overt) 40 N N
Viewing scrambled images and saying "baba" Word (overt) 20 Y Y
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Schofield et al. (2012) Listening to word pairs, speaker gender judgment Button press 18 Y U
Listening to reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment Button press 18 Y U
Rest None 40 (?) N/A N/A
Wright et al. (2012) Listening to normal sentences and detecting a target word Button press 2 Y Y 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
Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word Button press 2 Y Y
Listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word Button press 2 Y Y
Listening to "musical rain" and detecting a period of white noise Button press 2 Y Y
Rest None 2 N/A N/A
Szaflarski et al. (2013) Semantic decision Button press 10 N N
Tone decision Button press 12 N N
Thiel et al. (2013) Verb generation Word (overt) 4 U U
Rest None 4 N/A N/A
Abel et al. (2014) Picture naming (semantic trained items) Word (overt) 30 Y U
Picture naming (phonological trained items) Word (overt) 30 Y U
Picture naming (untrained items) Word (overt) 30 Y U
Picture naming (already known items) Word (overt) 42 Y U
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Benjamin et al. (2014) Word generation Word (overt) 60 U U
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Brownsett et al. (2014) Listening to sentences None Aphasia: not stated; control: 40 N/A N/A Paradigm was different in patients and controls, and is not described in sufficient detail for patients; in two patients, only single words were produced
Repeating sentences (sentence from previous trial) Sentence (overt) Aphasia: not stated; control: 40 Y N
Listening to noise vocoded sentences (control only) None 40 (control) N/A N/A
Repeating noise vocoded sentences (control only) Sentence (overt) 80 (control) Y U
Listening to segmented white noise None Aphasia: not stated; control: 40 N/A N/A
Mattioli et al. (2014) Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment Button press 56 Y U There is also mention of a noise "bip" that preceded each sentence but details are lacking; half of the sentences were semantically anomalous
Listening to reversed speech None 56 N/A N/A
Mohr et al. (2014) Listening to high ambiguity sentences None 19 N/A N/A
Listening to low ambiguity sentences None 19 N/A N/A
Listening to signal-correlated noise None 19 N/A N/A
Rest None 19 N/A N/A
Robson et al. (2014) Semantic decision (written word) Button press 16 Y N
Semantic decision (picture) Button press 16 Y N
Visual decision Button press 16 Y N
Rest None 48 N/A N/A
Szaflarski et al. (2014) Verb generation Multiple words (covert) 5 Y U
Finger tapping Other 6 Y Y
van Hees et al. (2014) Picture naming (phonological trained items) Word (overt) 30 Y N Some patients named < 10% correct at T1
Picture naming (semantic trained items) Word (overt) 30 Y N
Picture naming (known items) Word (overt) 30 Y Y
Viewing scrambled images None 30 N/A N/A
Abel et al. (2015) Picture naming Word (overt) 132 Y Y
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Kiran et al. (2015) Picture naming (trained) Word (overt) 40 U U
Picture naming (untrained) Word (overt) 40 U U
Viewing scrambled images and saying "skip" Word (overt) 80 U U
Semantic feature decision Button press 40 U U
Visual decision Button press 40 U U
Sandberg et al. (2015) Concreteness judgment (abstract words) Button press 60 Y N 2 patients below chance on abstract words per supplementary table 2
Concreteness judgment (concrete words) Button press 60 Y Y
Letter string judgment Button press 60 U U
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Geranmayeh et al. (2016) Propositional speech production Sentence (overt) 60 Y N
Counting Multiple words (overt) 48 Y U
Target decision Button press 48 Y U
Rest None 45 N/A N/A
Griffis et al. (2016) Verb generation Multiple words (covert) 7 Y Y
Finger tapping Other 7 U U
Sims et al. (2016) Semantic feature decision Button press 64 Y U Number of visual decision trials not reported
Visual decision Button press Not stated Y U
Semantic relatedness decision Button press 50 Y U
Pseudoword identity decision Button press 50 Y U
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Darkow et al. (2017) Picture naming Word (overt) 80 Y Y
Rest None 20 N/A N/A
Geranmayeh et al. (2017) Propositional speech production Sentence (overt) 60 Y Y All participants could do the target decision task except for one who was at chance
Counting Multiple words (overt) 48 Y U
Target decision Button press 48 Y N
Rest None 45 N/A N/A
Griffis et al. (2017a) Semantic decision Button press 5 N N Group performance below chance; several patients at 0 which is difficult to understand in a 2AFC task
Tone decision Button press 6 U U
Griffis et al. (2017b) Semantic decision Button press 5 N N Group performance below chance; several patients at 0 which is difficult to understand in a 2AFC task
Tone decision Button press 6 U U
Harvey et al. (2017) Picture naming Word (overt) 20 Y Y Assume all individuals could do based on inclusion criterion and BNT scores
Viewing patterns None 20 N/A N/A
Nardo et al. (2017) Picture naming (untrained items, word cue) Word (overt) 54 Y U Spectrally rotated noise vocoded auditory stimulus in no-cue conditions; one patient had a BNT of 1/60 so it is unclear whether that patient could do the task
Picture naming (untrained items, initial phonemes cue) Word (overt) 54 Y U
Picture naming (untrained items, final phonemes cue) Word (overt) 54 Y U
Picture naming (untrained items, no cue) Word (overt) 54 Y U
Picture naming (trained items, word cue) Word (overt) 53 Y U
Picture naming (trained items, initial phonemes cue) Word (overt) 53 Y U
Picture naming (trained items, final phonemes cue) Word (overt) 53 Y U
Picture naming (trained items, no cue) Word (overt) 53 Y U
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Nenert et al. (2017) Semantic decision Button press 10 U U Behavioral data are provided for the semantic decision and tone decision tasks, but the denominator is unclear; a post-scan recognition test for verb generation is reported, but this cannot confirm verb generation performance
Tone decision Button press 10 U U
Verb generation Multiple words (covert) 10 U U
Finger tapping Other 10 U U
Qiu et al. (2017) Picture naming Word (overt) 9 U U
Rest None 9 N/A N/A
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a) Picture naming (prepare to name) Word (covert) 32 Y Y Covert and overt naming were modeled as two phases of each trial (there was a cue to produce the name after 7500-9000 ms); 14 participants who were more impaired were given easier pictures to name; patients who named less than 10% of items correctly were excluded
Picture naming (produce the name) Word (overt) 32 Y Y
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017b) Picture naming (silently name) Word (covert) 32 Y Y Covert and overt naming were modeled as two phases of each trial (there was a cue to produce the name after 7500-9000 ms); 5 participants who were more impaired were given easier pictures to name; patients who named less than 20% of items correctly were excluded
Picture naming (produce the name) Word (overt) 32 Y Y
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Dietz et al. (2018) Verb generation (covert) Multiple words (covert) 15 U U Evidence for task performance from Dietz et al. (2016)
Verb generation (overt) Multiple words (overt) 15 Y U
Noun repetition Multiple words (overt) 15 Y U
Hallam et al. (2018) Listening to high ambiguity sentences None 24 N/A N/A All but one patient had good single word comprehension, which was argued to support sentence comprehension
Listening to low ambiguity sentences None 24 N/A N/A
Listening to spectrally rotated speech None 24 N/A N/A
Pressing a button to a visual cue Button press 9 U U
Rest None 12 N/A N/A
Nenert et al. (2018) Semantic decision Button press 5 N N Assume semantic decision is out of 25, so chance is 12.5 and 95% CI below chance at T2; post-scan recognition test for verb generation not considered to quantify task performance
Tone decision Button press 5 Y U
Verb generation Multiple words (covert) 5 U U
Finger tapping Other 5 U U
Pillay et al. (2018) Reading nouns aloud Word (overt) 72 Y N Some participants had < 10% accuracy, but this is appropriately addressed in the analysis
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Szaflarski et al. (2018) Semantic decision Button press 5 U U
Tone decision Button press 6 U U
van de Sandt-Koenderman et al. (2018) Listening to narrative speech None 6 N/A N/A
Listening to reversed speech None 6 N/A N/A
van Oers et al. (2018) Written word-picture matching Button press 6 U U
Semantic decision Button press 6 U U
Visual decision Button press 12 U U
Rest None 12 N/A N/A
Barbieri et al. (2019) Auditory sentence-picture verification Button press 32 U U Based on the behavioral data obtained outside the scanner, it is likely that many patients were at chance on the language task
Listening to reversed speech and viewing scrambled pictures Button press 8 U U
Johnson et al. (2019) Picture naming (trained items) Word (overt) 36 U U The untrained group were not actually trained on "trained items"; no accuracy data for untrained group (except for lack of change between T1 and T2)
Picture naming (untrained items, from control category) Word (overt) 36 U U
Picture naming (untrained items, from experimental categories) Word (overt) 36 U U
Viewing scrambled images and saying "skip" Word (overt) 36 U U
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Kristinsson et al. (2019) Picture naming Word (overt) 40 Y U
Viewing abstract pictures None 20 N/A N/A
Purcell et al. (2019) Spelling probe (training items) Button press 60 Y U Condition 3 not used in any contrasts
Spelling probe (known items) Button press 60 Y U
Case verification Button press 60 Y U
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A
Sreedharan et al. (2019b) Neurofeedback (try to activate language areas) Other 24 U U Suggested strategies to activate language areas included "making a speech, having a conversation, reciting a poem or any other form of language activity performed covertly"; picture naming task involved covert word response and button press; picture naming task not used in any contrast; word generation task used only to generate ROIs
Rest None 24 N/A N/A
Picture naming Other First and last timepoints: 48; other timepoints: 0 N N
Word generation Multiple words (covert) 5 U U
Hartwigsen et al. (2020) Syllable count decision Button press 10 Y Y Extent of recovery supports the assertion that all individuals could do the tasks
Semantic decision Button press 10 Y Y
Rest None 20 N/A N/A
Stockert et al. (2020) Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) None 46 U U Description implies that paradigm 2 did not include a semantically anomalous condition, but previous papers indicate that it did; conditions 2, 5, and 6 were not used, and condition 7 was effectively contrasted out; reported behavioral data collapses across conditions and paradigms and so does not establish performance on any specific condition, but the data suggest that at least the conditions where no language-related decisions were required could have been performed by all groups
Listening to semantically anomalous sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) Button press 46 U U
Listening to reversed speech Button press Paradigm 1: 92; paradigm 2: 30 Y U
Listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) Button press 15 Y U
Listening to semantically anomalous sentences (paradigm 2) Button press 15 Y U
Listening to pseudoword speech (paradigm 2) Button press 30 Y U
Rest None Implicit baseline N/A N/A

Repetitions = Number of times the condition was repeated per scanning session (PET measurements, blocks, or events); All groups could do? = Were all groups at all time points able to perform the task (if any)?; All indivs could do = Were all individuals at all time points able to perform the task (if any)?; 2AFC = two-alternative forced choice; BNT = Boston Naming Test; CAT = Comprehensive Aphasia Test; fMRI = functional magnetic resonance imaging; MIT = melodic intonation therapy; N = No; N/A = not applicable (no task); PET = positron emission tomography; PPT = Pyramids and Palm Trees; QPA = Quantitative Production Analysis; T1, T2, etc. = first time point, second time point, etc.; U = Unknown; wpm = words per minute; Y = Yes; Yellow underline = minor limitation; Orange underline = moderate limitation.