| Language | French |
| Inclusion criteria | MCA; persistent severe non-fluent aphasia followed by marked improvement with MIT |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 7 |
| Number of control participants | 0 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 49.7 years, range 40-58 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 7; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 15-149 months; including MIT for the most recent 1-108 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
| Language evaluation | BDAE |
| Aphasia severity | Persistent severe non-fluent aphasia followed by marked improvement with MIT |
| Aphasia type | 5 global, 2 Broca's |
| First stroke only? | Not stated |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
| Lesion extent | Not stated, but note that hypoperfusion greatly exceeded the infarct in all but 1 patient |
| Lesion location | L MCA; 2 also had ACA |
| Participants notes | — |
| Modality | PET (rCBF) |
| 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 (CEA LETI-TTV03) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | PET |
| Total images acquired | 4 |
| Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (7 transaxial slices 12 mm apart) |
| 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 | — |
| Language condition | Word repetition with MIT-like intonation |
| Control condition | Word repetition |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
| Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
| Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
| Are the conditions matched for cognitive/executive demands? | Yes |
| Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | No, by design |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | More words were correctly repeated with MIT (16.3 ± 8) than without (12.4 ± 8; p < 0.03) |
| Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | N/A |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | N/A |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | N/A |
| Control activation notes | — |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Word repetition with MIT-like intonation vs word repetition |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional performance-defined conditions |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | — |
| 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? | No, by design |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | More words were correctly repeated with MIT (16.3 ± 8) than without (12.4 ± 8; p < 0.03) |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 18 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L Broca's area; (2) L prefrontal; (3) L sensorimotor mouth; (4) L parietal; (5) L Wernicke's area; (6) L Heschl's gyrus; (7) L anterior STG; (8) L MTG; (9) L temporal pole; (10-18) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images; activation quantified as mean rCBF, not including any intersection of the infarct with the ROI |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | Three left hemisphere ROIs were excluded (3, 6, 9) because they were completely infarcted in 4 or more patients |
| Findings | ↑ L IFG
↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↓ R posterior STG |
| Findings notes | — |
