| Language | German |
| Inclusion criteria | MCA; able to repeat single words |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 12 |
| Number of control participants | 10 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (mean 57 years, range 34-78 years; controls not matched for age) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 7; females: 5; stated to be not matched, but difference not significant) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 12; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (T1: mean 24 ± 11 days, ~3-4 weeks; T2: mean 19 ± 2 months, > 1 year) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
| Language evaluation | TT |
| Aphasia severity | T1: 9 severe; 2 mild; 1 not stated; TT range 3-47 errors; T2: not stated |
| Aphasia type | T1: 8 global, 3 anomic, 1 Wernicke's; T2: not stated |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Ischemic only |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Extent and location |
| Lesion extent | Range 2-133 cc |
| Lesion location | L MCA |
| Participants notes | Only 7 of the 12 patients took part at T2 |
| Modality | PET (rCMRgl) |
| Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—recovery |
| If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: mean 24 ± 11 days, ~3-4 weeks; T2: mean 19 ± 2 months, > 1 year |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Not stated |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No* (moderate limitation) (activation and control images not acquired on the same day; number of acquisitions not clearly described) |
| Design type | PET |
| Total images acquired | 8 |
| 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? | No |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
| Control activation notes | ROIs only; negligible evidence of lateralization |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 vs control |
| 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? | 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? | 8 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG; (2) L STG/HG; (3) L SMA; (4) L ventral precentral; (5-8) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
| Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 219, but only the L SMA comparison is explicitly quantified |
| Findings | ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ L posterior STG
↓ L Heschl's gyrus |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) T1 (n = 7) |
| Covariate | TT T1 |
| 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? | 8 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG; (2) L STG/HG; (3) L SMA; (4) L ventral precentral; (5-8) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) T2 (n = 7) |
| Covariate | TT T2 |
| 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? | 8 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG; (2) L STG/HG; (3) L SMA; (4) L ventral precentral; (5-8) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R Heschl's gyrus |
| Findings notes | More activation in patients with more severe aphasia per TT |
| First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) (n = 7) T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | Subsequent outcome (T2) TT |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (the logic behind correlating activation changes and language outcome is unclear; 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 | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | L STG/HG |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L posterior STG
↑ L Heschl's gyrus |
| Findings notes | Increase in activation for repetition was correlated with better aphasia outcome per TT |
| First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (subset who returned for follow-up) T2 (n = 7) |
| Covariate | Previous Δ (T2 vs T1) activation in L STG/HG |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (logically problematic because patients with less severe initial aphasia would also be expected to show little L temporal increase, but would not be expected to show R temporal recruitment) |
| 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? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) R IFG; (2) R STG/HG; (3) R SMA; (4) R ventral precentral |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Individual anatomical images |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↓ R IFG
↓ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↓ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↓ R posterior STG
↓ R Heschl's gyrus |
| Findings notes | Patients with more increase in L STG/HG activation showed less activation of R hemisphere regions at T2 |
