| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 8 |
| Number of control participants | 8 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 40-79 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (males: 5; females: 3; control sex not stated, but reported to be matched) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 8; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 48.3 months, range 30-78 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
| Language evaluation | WAB, BNT, portions of PALPA, PPT, CLQT |
| Aphasia severity | AQ range 74.0-97.8 |
| Aphasia type | 6 anomic, 2 recovered |
| First stroke only? | Not stated |
| Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
| Lesion extent | Range 23-45 cc |
| 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? | No (GE 3 Tesla; model not stated) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No* (moderate limitation) (control events took place in the inter-trial interval between language events, and may have been systematically confounded in timing; the total number of functional images acquired is not stated) |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | not stated |
| 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? | No (only correct trials are included but it is not stated how incorrect trials were modeled; in general, it is not stated whether the control events were modeled at all) |
| Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Imaging notes | — |
| Language condition | Picture naming (correct trials) |
| Control condition | Viewing scrambled images and saying "pass" |
| 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? | No |
| Is accuracy matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Accuracy/RT not reported for control task |
| 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? | No |
| Control activation notes | Reporting is selective, but appears mostly bilateral with slight L-lateralization of language areas |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Language condition | Semantic decision (correct trials) |
| Control condition | Visual decision |
| 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? | Unknown, not reported |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Accuracy/RT not reported for control task |
| 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? | Yes |
| Control activation notes | Clearly lateralized frontal activation, but very modest temporal activation |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images and saying "pass" |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Lesion volume |
| 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 | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Mixed |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG (oper/tri); (2) L posterior perisylvian (pSTG, pMTG, AG, SMG); (3) R IFG (oper/tri); (4) R posterior perisylvian (pSTG, pMTG, AG, SMG); (5) language network LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Harvard–Oxford atlas |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ LI (language network) |
| Findings notes | Larger lesions were associated with more R posterior perisylvian activation |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision (correct trials) vs visual decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Lesion volume |
| 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 | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Mixed |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG (oper/tri); (2) L posterior perisylvian (pSTG, pMTG, AG, SMG); (3) R IFG (oper/tri); (4) R posterior perisylvian (pSTG, pMTG, AG, SMG); (5) language network LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Harvard–Oxford atlas |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
