Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Supplementary Table S9. Contrasts

ContrastLanguageControlMatched forCtrl activationNotes
conditionconditionVisAudMotCogAccRTRepLangLat
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 et al. (2012a): 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 et al. (2012a): 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 et al. (2012a): 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 et al. (2012a): 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 et al. (2012b): 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 et al. (2017a): 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 et al. (2017b): 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 (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. (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. (2017b): 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. (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
Skipper-Kallal et al. (2017b): 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
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 et al. (2019b): 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.