| Contrast | Language | Control | Matched for | Ctrl activation | Notes | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| condition | condition | Vis | Aud | Mot | Cog | Acc | RT | Rep | Lang | Lat | |||
| Weiller et al. (1995): Contrast 1 | Verb generation | Rest | Y | N | Y | N | NANC | NANC | S | Y | Y | L posterior temporal, IFG and ventral precentral gyrus, much smaller activations in the R hemisphere | |
| Weiller et al. (1995): Contrast 2 | Pseudoword repetition | Rest | Y | N | Y | N | NANC | NANC | S | S | S | L posterior temporal only; similar but less extensive activation in the R hemisphere | |
| Belin et al. (1996): Contrast 1 | Word repetition with MIT-like intonation | Word repetition | Y | Y | Y | Y | NBD | UNR | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
| Ohyama et al. (1996): Contrast 1 | Word repetition | Rest | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | S | N | Bilateral auditory and motor activations are prominent, only slightly L-lateralized | |
| Heiss et al. (1997): Contrast 1 | Word repetition | Rest | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | U | N | 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 | |
| Karbe et al. (1998): Contrast 1 | Word repetition | Rest | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | N | N | ROIs only; negligible evidence of lateralization | |
| Cao et al. (1999): Contrast 1 | Picture naming | Viewing nonsense drawings | Y | Y | Y | N | NANC | NANC | S | U | S | Insufficient data to assess the control activation pattern | |
| Heiss et al. (1999): Contrast 1 | Noun repetition | Rest | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | S | S | L frontal and bilateral temporal | |
| Kessler et al. (2000): Contrast 1 | Word repetition | Rest | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | No control data are reported or cited, however the same task was used in several previous studies by this group | |
| Rosen et al. (2000): Contrast 1 | Word stem completion (PET) | Rest (PET) | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | S | Y | L IFG, L ITG, L anterior fusiform | |
| Rosen et al. (2000): Contrast 2 | Word stem completion (fMRI) | Rest (fMRI) | N | Y | Y | N | NANC | NANC | S | S | Y | L IFG, L intraparietal sulcus | |
| Blasi et al. (2002): Contrast 1 | Word stem completion (novel items) | Rest | N | Y | Y | N | NANC | NANC | Y | S | S | Activation of language areas but also other areas; frontal activation is somewhat lateralized | |
| Blasi et al. (2002): Contrast 2 | Word stem completion (novel items) | Word stem completion (repeated items) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | S | U | S | No whole brain analysis of this contrast, but somewhat lateralized in the sense that L but not R frontal areas showed a learning effect | |
| Leff et al. (2002): Contrast 1 | Higher word rates | Lower word rates | Y | N | Y | Y | NANB | NANT | S | S | S | 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?) | |
| Blank et al. (2003): Contrast 1 | Propositional speech production | Rest | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | Y | S | S | Much bilateral activation due to overt speech but pars opercularis and supratemporal plane L-lateralized | |
| Blank et al. (2003): Contrast 2 | Propositional speech production | Counting | Y | Y | Y | N | NANC | NANC | Y | S | S | Extrasylvian; somewhat L-lateralized | |
| Cardebat et al. (2003): Contrast 1 | Word generation | Rest | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | S | N | Bilateral fronto-temporal and some other regions per text | |
| Sharp et al. (2004): Contrast 1 | Semantic decision | Syllable count decision | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | S | S | Y | The control data provided also include the noise vocoded conditions; only ventral temporal activations are shown, which are L-lateralized | |
| Zahn et al. (2004): Contrast 1 | Semantic decision | Phonetic decision and lexical decision (conjunction) | Y | Y | Y | Y | AS | UNR | Y | Y | Y | L-lateralized frontal activation, as well as temporal and parietal to a lesser extent; conjunction of baseline conditions not described in sufficient detail | |
| Crinion & Price (2005): Contrast 1 | Listening to narrative speech | Listening to reversed speech | Y | Y | Y | Y | NANB | NANT | Y | Y | S | Bilateral (L > R) temporal, L IFG and L dorsal precentral | |
| de Boissezon et al. (2005): Contrast 1 | Word generation | Rest | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | ||
| Connor et al. (2006): Contrast 1 | Word stem completion (novel items) | Word stem completion (repeated items) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | S | U | S | No whole brain analysis of this contrast, but somewhat lateralized in the sense that L but not R frontal areas showed a learning effect; the only contrast analyzed in this paper is the "learning" contrast which corresponds to contrast 2 in Blasi et al. (2002) | |
| Crinion et al. (2006): Contrast 1 | Listening to narrative speech | Listening to reversed speech | Y | Y | Y | Y | NANB | NANT | S | Y | S | 11 participants; L-lateralized posterior temporal, bilateral anterior temporal, no frontal | |
| Saur et al. (2006): Contrast 1 | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment | Listening to reversed speech | Y | Y | N | N | UNR | UNR | Y | Y | Y | L temporal and L > R frontal | |
| Meinzer et al. (2008): Contrast 1 | Picture naming (trained items) | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | ||
| Meinzer et al. (2008): Contrast 2 | Picture naming (untrained items) | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | ||
| Raboyeau et al. (2008): Contrast 1 | Picture naming (native in patients; relearned foreign in controls) | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | Presumably only the relearned foreign condition was used in controls (not the native condition), but this is not stated explicitly | |
| Richter et al. (2008): Contrast 1 | Reading words silently | Rest | N | Y | Y | N | NANC | NANC | S | U | U | Appears to be somewhat L-lateralized frontal, but not well visualized | |
| Richter et al. (2008): Contrast 2 | Word stem completion | Rest | N | Y | Y | N | NANC | NANC | S | U | N | Bilateral frontal; other regions not well visualized | |
| de Boissezon et al. (2009): Contrast 1 | Word generation | Rest | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | S | N | Control data in Cardebat et al. (2003); bilateral fronto-temporal and some other regions per text | |
| Fridriksson et al. (2009): Contrast 1 | Picture naming (correct trials) | Viewing scrambled images | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | N | S | Control data in Fridriksson et al. (2007); motor activations are prominent; there is some L frontal activation but little temporal activation in either hemisphere | |
| Fridriksson et al. (2009): Contrast 2 | Picture naming (phonemic paraphasias) | Picture naming (correct trials) | Y | Y | Y | Y | NBD | UNR | N/A | N/A | N/A | Control data N/A because controls do not typically make errors | |
| Fridriksson et al. (2009): Contrast 3 | Picture naming (semantic paraphasias) | Picture naming (correct trials) | Y | Y | Y | Y | NBD | UNR | N/A | N/A | N/A | Control data N/A because controls do not typically make errors | |
| Menke et al. (2009): Contrast 1 | Picture naming (trained items) | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | U | U | Table of coordinates only | |
| Menke et al. (2009): Contrast 2 | Picture naming (untrained items) | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | U | U | Table of coordinates only | |
| Specht et al. (2009): Contrast 1 | Lexical decision (words vs pseudowords) | Lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words) | Y | Y | Y | Y | UNR | UNR | Y | S | Y | The contrast activated a ventral part of the L IFG, along with L anterior cingulate and L DLPFC | |
| Warren et al. (2009): Contrast 1 | Listening to narrative speech | Listening to reversed speech | Y | Y | Y | Y | NANB | NANT | S | Y | S | 11 participants; L-lateralized posterior temporal, bilateral anterior temporal, no frontal | |
| Chau et al. (2010): Contrast 1 | Answering questions from Cantonese Aphasia Battery | Visual decision | N | N | Y | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | ||
| Fridriksson (2010): Contrast 1 | Picture naming (correct trials) | Viewing abstract pictures | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | N | S | Control data in Fridriksson et al. (2007); motor activations are prominent; there is some L frontal activation but little temporal activation in either hemisphere. | |
| Fridriksson et al. (2010): Contrast 1 | Picture naming (correct trials) | Viewing abstract pictures | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | S | S | L-lateralized frontal and temporal activations, but also bilateral visual, motor and auditory | |
| Sharp et al. (2010): Contrast 1 | Semantic decision (clear in patients; average of clear and noise vocoded in controls) | Syllable count decision (clear in patients; average of clear and noise vocoded in controls) | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | S | S | Y | Not stated exactly what contrast was used in controls | |
| Thompson et al. (2010): Contrast 1 | Auditory sentence-picture matching (all three sentence types) | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | ||
| Tyler et al. (2010): Contrast 1 | Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word | Listening to scrambled sentences and detecting a target word | Y | Y | Y | Y | UNR | AS | S | Y | N | 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; the contrast is intended to identify regions involved in syntactic processing, however it seems possible that there are semantic differences between these conditions also | |
| van Oers et al. (2010): Contrast 1 | Written word-picture matching | Visual decision | N | Y | Y | N | UNR | UNR | Y | S | S | 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 | |
| van Oers et al. (2010): Contrast 2 | Semantic decision | Visual decision | N | Y | Y | N | UNR | UNR | Y | S | S | 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 | |
| van Oers et al. (2010): Contrast 3 | Verb generation | Rest | N | Y | Y | N | NANC | NANC | Y | S | S | ||
| Papoutsi et al. (2011): Contrast 1 | Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") | Listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") | Y | Y | Y | Y | NANB | NANT | Y | Y | Y | Control data in Tyler et al. (2011); L frontal and temporal | |
| Sebastian & Kiran (2011): Contrast 1 | Picture naming (correct trials) | Viewing scrambled images and saying "pass" | Y | Y | Y | N | UNR | UNR | S | S | N | Reporting is selective, but appears mostly bilateral with slight L-lateralization of language areas | |
| Sebastian & Kiran (2011): Contrast 2 | Semantic decision (correct trials) | Visual decision | Y | Y | Y | Y | UNR | UNR | S | S | Y | Clearly lateralized frontal activation, but very modest temporal activation | |
| Szaflarski et al. (2011): Contrast 1 | Semantic decision | Tone decision | Y | Y | Y | Y | AS | UNR | Y | Y | Y | Control data in Kim et al. (2011) and Szaflarski et al. (2008); L frontal and temporal, plus other semantic regions | |
| Tyler et al. (2011): Contrast 1 | Listening to ambiguous sentences (dominant and subordinate) | Listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") | Y | Y | Y | Y | NANB | NANT | Y | S | Y | L frontal and parietal; R frontal (but L > R); no L temporal | |
| Tyler et al. (2011): Contrast 2 | Listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") | Listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") | Y | Y | Y | Y | NANB | NANT | Y | S | Y | L frontal and parietal; no L temporal | |
| Tyler et al. (2011): Contrast 3 | Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") | Listening to unambiguous sentences ("unambiguous") | Y | Y | Y | Y | NANB | NANT | Y | Y | Y | L frontal, temporal and parietal, R frontal (but L > R) | |
| Tyler et al. (2011): Contrast 4 | Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") | Listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") | Y | Y | Y | Y | NANB | NANT | Y | Y | Y | L frontal and temporal | |
| Weiduschat et al. (2011): Contrast 1 | Verb generation | Rest | Y | N | Y | N | NANC | NANC | S | U | U | Control data in Herholz et al. (1996); insufficient to fully validate the contrast | |
| Allendorfer et al. (2012): Contrast 1 | Verb generation (covert, block) | Finger tapping (block) | Y | Y | N | N | NANC | NANC | Y | Y | Y | Strongly lateralized frontal and temporal activation | |
| Allendorfer et al. (2012): Contrast 2 | Verb generation (overt, event-related) | Noun repetition (event-related) | Y | Y | Y | N | AM | UNR | Y | S | S | Somewhat L-lateralized frontal, temporal and parietal activations, but also extensive midline activation | |
| Allendorfer et al. (2012): Contrast 3 | Verb generation (overt, event-related) | Verb generation (covert, event-related) | Y | N | N | Y | NANC | NANC | Y | S | N/A | Bilateral speech motor activations, but also extensive midline activation | |
| Fridriksson, Hubbard, et al. (2012): Contrast 1 | Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) | Listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences | Y | Y | Y | Y | UNR | UNR | S | N | N | Control and patient data are combined; this contrast activates bilateral anterior insula and posterior MTG, slightly more extensive on the L | |
| Fridriksson, Hubbard, et al. (2012): Contrast 2 | Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | Rest condition implied but not explicitly described | |
| Fridriksson, Hubbard, et al. (2012): Contrast 3 | Listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | Rest condition implied but not explicitly described | |
| Fridriksson, Hubbard, et al. (2012): Contrast 4 | Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouth | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANB | NANT | N | U | U | Rest condition implied but not explicitly described | |
| Fridriksson, Richardson, et al. (2012): Contrast 1 | Picture naming | Viewing abstract pictures | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | N | S | Control data in Fridriksson et al. (2007); motor activations are prominent; there is some L frontal activation but little temporal activation in either hemisphere | |
| Marcotte et al. (2012): Contrast 1 | Picture naming (T1: known items; T2: trained items; correct trials) | Viewing scrambled images and saying "baba" | Y | Y | Y | N | YCT | UNR | N | U | U | Different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained | |
| Marcotte et al. (2012): Contrast 2 | Picture naming (known items, correct trials) | Viewing scrambled images and saying "baba" | Y | Y | Y | N | YCT | UNR | N | U | U | Different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained | |
| Marcotte et al. (2012): Contrast 3 | Picture naming (trained items, correct trials) | Viewing scrambled images and saying "baba" | Y | Y | Y | N | YCT | UNR | N | U | U | Different contrasts at different time points not clearly explained | |
| Schofield et al. (2012): Contrast 1 | Listening to word pairs or reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | Y | N | N | Control data in Leff et al. (2008); auditory contrast, not intended to be language contrast | |
| Schofield et al. (2012): Contrast 2 | Listening to word pairs, speaker gender judgment | Listening to reversed word pairs, speaker gender judgment | Y | Y | Y | Y | UNR | UNR | Y | S | Y | Control data in Leff et al. (2008); L-lateralized activation of posterior STS | |
| Wright et al. (2012): Contrast 1 | Listening to normal sentences and detecting a target word | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | Y | N | N | Bilateral superior temporal, sensorimotor and visual | |
| Wright et al. (2012): Contrast 2 | Listening to grammatical but meaningless sentences and detecting a target word | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | ||
| Szaflarski et al. (2013): Contrast 1 | Semantic decision | Tone decision | Y | Y | Y | Y | AM | UNR | Y | Y | Y | Control data in Kim et al. (2011) and Szaflarski et al. (2008); L frontal and temporal, plus other semantic regions | |
| Thiel et al. (2013): Contrast 1 | Verb generation | Rest | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | U | U | Cites Weiduschat et al. (2011) which in turn cites Herholz et al. (1996) which provides some minimal control data | |
| Abel et al. (2014): Contrast 1 | Picture naming (all conditions) | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | But see control data reported in a subsequent paper (Abel et al., 2015) | |
| Abel et al. (2014): Contrast 2 | Picture naming (trained items) | Picture naming (untrained items) | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | UNR | N | U | U | ||
| Abel et al. (2014): Contrast 3 | Picture naming (semantic trained items) | Picture naming (phonological trained items) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | UNR | N | U | U | ||
| Benjamin et al. (2014): Contrast 1 | Word generation | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | Contrast not described explicitly but there is only one possible contrast | |
| Brownsett et al. (2014): Contrast 1 | Listening to sentences | Listening to segmented white noise | Y | Y | Y | Y | NANB | NANT | N | U | U | ||
| Brownsett et al. (2014): Contrast 2 | Listening to sentences (patients) or listening to noise vocoded sentences (controls) | Listening to segmented white noise | Y | Y | Y | Y | NANB | NANT | N | U | U | ||
| Mattioli et al. (2014): Contrast 1 | Listening to sentences and making a plausibility judgment | Listening to reversed speech | Y | Y | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | S | Y | 10 participants; quite lateralized activity centered on the anterior Sylvian fissure; it is mentioned that "noise" was also included on the negative side of the contrast; it is unclear if this refers to the noise "bip", which would be inappropriate | |
| Mohr et al. (2014): Contrast 1 | Listening to sentences (high and low ambiguity) | Listening to signal-correlated noise | Y | Y | Y | Y | NANB | NANT | N | U | U | Some control data in Rodd et al. (2005), but half of the participants were performing a probe judgment task, unlike in the present study | |
| Mohr et al. (2014): Contrast 2 | Listening to high ambiguity sentences | Listening to low ambiguity sentences | Y | Y | Y | Y | NANB | NANT | N | U | U | Some control data in Rodd et al. (2005), but half of the participants were performing a probe judgment task, unlike in the present study | |
| Robson et al. (2014): Contrast 1 | Semantic decision (written word and picture) | Visual decision and rest | N | Y | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | S | N | Control data are provided in Table 6 for contrasts of written word semantic decision vs dual baseline, and picture semantic decision vs dual baseline, but not for the main effect of semantic decision; these data suggest that the contrast activates ventral temporal regions bilaterally; two contrasts are described: (1) written word judgment versus a dual baseline of visual judgment and rest; (2) picture judgment versus a dual baseline of visual judgment and rest; these two primary contrasts are reported in patients and controls separately, but no between-group contrasts are reported, so these contrasts are excluded from our review; rather, the between-groups analyses in the paper take the form of ANOVAs; the main effect of group in these ANOVAs collapses across the two described contrasts, therefore we have coded the contrast as the average of the two described contrasts; the exact nature of the computation of dual baseline contrasts is not described | |
| Szaflarski et al. (2014): Contrast 1 | Verb generation | Finger tapping | Y | Y | N | N | NANC | NANC | Y | Y | S | Control data in Szaflarski et al. (2008); frontal activation L-lateralized, temporal less so | |
| van Hees et al. (2014): Contrast 1 | Picture naming (phonological trained items, correct trials) | Viewing scrambled images | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | U | U | Control data are described for naming untrained items; the data are reported only briefly in the text; it is notable that no speech motor, visual, or auditory activations are reported, as might be expected in a picture naming task; correct and incorrect trials were apparently modeled separately, but this is not clearly stated, nor are the criteria for deciding whether trials were correct; it is generally not clear which contrasts exactly were run | |
| van Hees et al. (2014): Contrast 2 | Picture naming (semantic trained items, correct trials) | Viewing scrambled images | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | U | U | Control data are described for naming untrained items; the data are reported only briefly in the text; it is notable that no speech motor, visual, or auditory activations are reported, as might be expected in a picture naming task; correct and incorrect trials were apparently modeled separately, but this is not clearly stated, nor are the criteria for deciding whether trials were correct; it is generally not clear which contrasts exactly were run | |
| Abel et al. (2015): Contrast 1 | Picture naming | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | Y | N | N | Bilateral somato-motor, auditory and to a lesser extent higher level visual regions; finite impulse analysis only | |
| Kiran et al. (2015): Contrast 1 | Picture naming (trained) | Viewing scrambled images and saying "skip" | Y | Y | Y | N | UNR | UNR | S | N | S | Overlap of individual participant activation maps; somewhat lateralized frontal and temporal, but also bilateral occipito-temporal | |
| Kiran et al. (2015): Contrast 2 | Semantic feature decision | Visual decision | Y | Y | Y | N | UNR | UNR | S | N | S | Overlap of individual participant activation maps; somewhat lateralized frontal and temporal, but also bilateral occipito-temporal; this contrast inferred but not described | |
| Sandberg et al. (2015): Contrast 1 | Concreteness judgment (abstract words, correct trials) | Rest | N | Y | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | The concreteness judgment task was compared to the letter string judgment task to define ROIs for connectivity analysis, but the group analysis meeting criteria for this review appears to be based only on comparisons between time points on the concreteness judgment conditions | |
| Sandberg et al. (2015): Contrast 2 | Concreteness judgment (concrete words, correct trials) | Rest | N | Y | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | The concreteness judgment task was compared to the letter string judgment task to define ROIs for connectivity analysis, but the group analysis meeting criteria for this review appears to be based only on comparisons between time points on the concreteness judgment conditions | |
| Geranmayeh et al. (2016): Contrast 1 | Propositional speech production | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | S | N | Control data for univariate analysis in Geranmayeh et al. (2014), but note that the present paper does not describe a univariate analysis; control activations reflect speech rather than language | |
| Geranmayeh et al. (2016): Contrast 2 | Propositional speech production | Counting | N | Y | Y | N | NANC | NANC | S | Y | Y | Control data for univariate analysis in Geranmayeh et al. (2014), but note that the present paper does not describe a univariate analysis; control activations are L frontal, L pSTS, L SMA, L > R occipito-temporal | |
| Geranmayeh et al. (2016): Contrast 3 | Propositional speech production | Target decision | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | ||
| Griffis et al. (2016): Contrast 1 | Verb generation | Finger tapping | Y | Y | N | N | NANC | NANC | Y | Y | S | Control data in Szaflarski et al. (2008); frontal activation L-lateralized, temporal less so | |
| Sims et al. (2016): Contrast 1 | Semantic feature decision (6 patients, 4 controls) or semantic relatedness decision (8 patients, 4 controls) | Visual decision or pseudoword identity decision | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | UNR | N | U | U | 8 patients and 4 controls performed one paradigm, while 6 patients and 4 controls performed another; the data were combined based on the assumption that similar processes were implicated by the two contrasts | |
| Darkow et al. (2017): Contrast 1 | Picture naming | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | ||
| Geranmayeh et al. (2017): Contrast 1 | Propositional speech production | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | Y | N | N | Control data in Geranmayeh et al. (2014); speech not language; relevant activations are bilateral; not entirely clear that the whole brain analysis is indeed propositional speech production vs rest; a contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting is also used to define the preSMA/dACC ROI | |
| Griffis, Nenert, Allendorfer, & Szaflarski (2017): Contrast 1 | Semantic decision | Tone decision | Y | Y | Y | Y | UNR | UNR | Y | Y | Y | Temporal activation is mid MTG and AG rather than pSTS | |
| Griffis, Nenert, Allendorfer, Vannest, et al. (2017): Contrast 1 | Semantic decision | Tone decision | Y | Y | Y | Y | UNR | UNR | Y | Y | Y | Temporal activation is mid MTG and AG rather than pSTS | |
| Harvey et al. (2017): Contrast 1 | Picture naming | Viewing patterns | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | ||
| Nardo et al. (2017): Contrast 1 | Picture naming (all conditions, correct trials) | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | It is difficult to determine exactly what contrasts were employed | |
| Nardo et al. (2017): Contrast 2 | Picture naming (untrained items, no cue, correct trials) | Picture naming (trained items, no cue, correct trials) | Y | Y | Y | Y | YCT | N | N | U | U | It is difficult to determine exactly what contrasts were employed | |
| Nenert et al. (2017): Contrast 1 | Semantic decision | Tone decision | Y | Y | Y | Y | AM | UNR | Y | Y | Y | Lateralized frontal, temporal, and parietal | |
| Nenert et al. (2017): Contrast 2 | Verb generation | Finger tapping | Y | Y | N | N | NANC | NANC | Y | Y | S | Control data in Szaflarski et al. (2008); frontal activation L-lateralized, temporal less so | |
| Qiu et al. (2017): Contrast 1 | Picture naming | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | N | S | Somewhat L-lateralized frontal and anterior temporal language activations, but the majority of activation is in unexpected regions | |
| Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a): Contrast 1 | Picture naming (silently name, correct trials) | Rest | N | Y | Y | N | NANC | NANC | Y | N | N | Bilateral frontal and occipito-temporal, but not posterior temporal | |
| Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a): Contrast 2 | Picture naming (produce the name, correct trials) | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | Y | N | N | Bilateral frontal and occipito-temporal, but not posterior temporal; speech motor activation not readily apparent | |
| Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017a): Contrast 3 | Picture naming (both phases, correct trials) | Picture naming (both phases, incorrect trials) | Y | U | U | Y | NBD | UNR | N/A | N/A | N/A | Control data N/A because controls do not typically make errors; it is unclear whether there were no-response trials and whether they were modeled as incorrect | |
| Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017b): Contrast 1 | Picture naming (prepare to name, correct trials) | Rest | N | Y | Y | N | NANC | NANC | Y | N | N | Bilateral frontal and occipito-temporal, but not posterior temporal | |
| Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017b): Contrast 2 | Picture naming (produce the name, correct trials) | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | Y | N | N | Bilateral frontal and occipito-temporal, but not posterior temporal; speech motor activation not readily apparent | |
| Dietz et al. (2018): Contrast 1 | Verb generation (overt) | Noun repetition | Y | Y | Y | N | UNR | UNR | Y | S | S | Control data in Allendorfer et al. (2012); somewhat L-lateralized frontal, temporal and parietal activations, but also extensive midline activation | |
| Hallam et al. (2018): Contrast 1 | Listening to high or low ambiguity sentences | Listening to spectrally rotated speech | Y | Y | Y | Y | NANB | NANT | S | U | U | Hard to evaluate contrast because a "semantic mask" is used but is not described in detail | |
| Hallam et al. (2018): Contrast 2 | Listening to high ambiguity sentences | Listening to low ambiguity sentences | Y | Y | Y | Y | NANB | NANT | N | U | U | ||
| Nenert et al. (2018): Contrast 1 | Semantic decision | Tone decision | Y | Y | Y | Y | AM | UNR | Y | Y | Y | L lateral and medial frontal and AG, strongly lateralized | |
| Nenert et al. (2018): Contrast 2 | Verb generation | Finger tapping | Y | Y | N | N | NANC | NANC | Y | Y | Y | L lateral and medial frontal and mid temporal, strongly lateralized | |
| Pillay et al. (2018): Contrast 1 | Reading nouns aloud (correct trials) | Reading nouns aloud (incorrect trials) | Y | Y | Y | Y | NBD | Y | N/A | N/A | N/A | Control data N/A because controls do not typically make errors | |
| Szaflarski et al. (2018): Contrast 1 | Semantic decision | Tone decision | Y | Y | Y | Y | UNR | UNR | Y | Y | Y | L frontal and temporal, plus other semantic regions | |
| van de Sandt-Koenderman et al. (2018): Contrast 1 | Listening to narrative speech | Listening to reversed speech | Y | Y | Y | Y | NANB | NANT | N | U | U | ||
| van Oers et al. (2018): Contrast 1 | Written word-picture matching | Visual decision | N | Y | Y | N | UNR | UNR | S | N | S | Primarily bilateral visual activations; frontal activation is L-lateralized | |
| van Oers et al. (2018): Contrast 2 | Semantic decision | Visual decision | N | Y | Y | N | UNR | UNR | S | S | Y | L frontal, L posterior ITG, L superior parietal | |
| Barbieri et al. (2019): Contrast 1 | Auditory sentence-picture verification | Listening to reversed speech and viewing scrambled pictures | Y | Y | Y | N | UNR | UNR | Y | S | S | L-lateralized inferior frontal and posterior temporal, but also bilateral posterior inferior temporal and lateral occipital activations; contrast described as "passive > control" but seems to involve active and passive sentences | |
| Johnson et al. (2019): Contrast 1 | Picture naming (trained items) | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | S | N | N | Most ROIs deactivated in controls | |
| Kristinsson et al. (2019): Contrast 1 | Picture naming | Viewing abstract pictures | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | ||
| Purcell et al. (2019): Contrast 1 | Spelling probe (training items) | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | Task comes from Rapp and Lipka (2011), who report lateralized activations for the contrast of spelling probes to case verification, but do not report results relative to fixation baseline | |
| Purcell et al. (2019): Contrast 2 | Spelling probe (known items) | Rest | N | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | N | U | U | Task comes from Rapp and Lipka (2011), who report lateralized activations for the contrast of spelling probes to case verification, but do not report results relative to fixation baseline | |
| Sreedharan, Chandran, et al. (2019): Contrast 1 | Neurofeedback (try to activate language areas) | Rest | N | Y | Y | N | NANC | NANC | S | U | N | Task activated L IFG and L STG in controls (Fig. 8c), but no data on other regions, and language activations were not lateralized (Fig. 9d) | |
| Hartwigsen et al. (2020): Contrast 1 | Syllable count decision | Rest | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | Y | Y | S | Control data in Hartwigsen et al. (2017); L-lateralized IFG but bilateral SMG | |
| Hartwigsen et al. (2020): Contrast 2 | Semantic decision | Rest | Y | N | N | N | NANC | NANC | Y | Y | Y | Control data in Hartwigsen et al. (2017); L-lateralized IFG and AG most prominent | |
| Stockert et al. (2020): Contrast 1 | Listening to normal sentences and making a plausibility judgment (paradigm 1) or listening to normal sentences (paradigm 2) | Listening to reversed speech | Y | Y | N | N | UNR | NANC | S | Y | Y | Not stated which of the two paradigms controls were run on, but clearly L-lateralized frontal and temporal activation; bilateral MD network activation also noted; 20 patients performed paradigm 1 and 14 patients performed paradigm 2; data were combined despite some differences; unclear whether all reversed speech was included, or only reversed speech derived from plausible sentences | |
Vis = Are the language and control conditions matched for visual demands?; Aud = Are the language and control conditions matched for auditory demands?; Mot = Are the language and control conditions matched for motor demands?; Cog = Are the language and control conditions matched for cognitive demands?; Acc = Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all groups at all time points?; RT = Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all groups at all time points?; Rep = Are control data reported in the paper, or in a previous publication that is cited?; Lang = Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in neurologically normal individuals?; Lat = Are activations lateralized in neurologically normal individuals?; AG = angular gyrus; AM = Appear mismatched; ANOVA = analysis of variance; AS = Appear similar; C = Accuracy or RT is covariate; DLPFC = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; fMRI = functional magnetic resonance imaging; IFG = inferior frontal gyrus; ITG = inferior temporal gyrus; L = left; MIT = melodic intonation therapy; MTG = middle temporal gyrus; N = No; N/A = not applicable; NAM = No, but attempt made; NANB = Not applicable, no behavioral measure; NANC = Not applicable, tasks not comparable.; NANT = Not applicable, no timeable task; NBD = No, by design; PET = positron emission tomography; pSTS = posterior superior temporal sulcus; R = right; ROI = region of interest; S = Somewhat; SMA = supplementary motor area; STG = superior temporal gyrus; STS = superior temporal sulcus; T1, T2, etc. = first time point, second time point, etc.; U = Unknown; UNR = Unknown, not reported; UNT = Unknown, no test; Y = Yes; YCT = Yes, correct trials only; Yellow underline = minor limitation; Orange underline = moderate limitation; Red underline = major limitation.
