| 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 | — |
| 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 | — |
| 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 | — |
| 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 |
| 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 | — |
