| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 15 |
| Number of control participants | 9 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 61.9 years, range 41-81 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (males: 7; females: 8; not stated for controls) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 29.7 months, > 6 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
| Language evaluation | WAB |
| Aphasia severity | AQ mean 77.1, range 47.1-93.7 |
| Aphasia type | 10 anomic, 3 Broca's, 2 conduction |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Ischemic only |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | L MCA |
| Participants notes | — |
| Modality | fMRI |
| Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Cross-sectional |
| If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | — |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | — |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (exact timing of picture presentation not specified) |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | 120 |
| Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (whole brain) |
| Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Imaging notes | sparse sampling |
| Language condition | Picture naming (correct trials) |
| Control condition | Viewing abstract pictures |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
| Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | No |
| Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, tasks not comparable |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
| Control activation notes | L-lateralized frontal and temporal activations, but also bilateral visual, motor and auditory |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Picture naming accuracy |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
| Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, correct trials only |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p |
| Software | FSL 4.1 |
| Voxelwise p | ~.02 (z > 2) |
| Cluster extent | Based on GRFT |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L IFG pars orbitalis
↑ L occipital
↑ L anterior cingulate |
| Findings notes | Greater activation was associated with better picture naming; L IFG pars orbitalis activation classified as middle frontal gyrus in the paper, but coordinates suggest otherwise |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Picture naming accuracy |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
| Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, correct trials only |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | A single ROI comprising 3 regions where activation in patients was correlated with picture naming accuracy: the L IFG pars orbitalis, occipital lobe, and anterior cingulate |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Based on SPM analysis 1 |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether these regions were recruited in the patients with better naming, or not activated in the patients with worse naming, relative to the control mean |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | Patients with better naming showed greater activation than controls, while the patients with poorer naming showed less activation than controls. |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing abstract pictures |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Lesion status of each voxel |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes |
| Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, correct trials only |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Complex |
| Statistical details | VLSM was used to identify any regions in which damage was predictive of activation in the regions identified in SPM analysis 1, considered as a single ROI. There was no correction for multiple comparisons, and the analysis is appropriately presented as exploratory. |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | Only in the L IFG pars opercularis was damage predictive of reduced activation in the potentially compensatory network. |
