| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | L IFG, possibly extending to neighboring regions |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 6 |
| Number of control participants | 14 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (1 participant was reported in a previous case study) |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (mean 47 years, range 32-72 years; control participants not age-matched) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 3; females: 3) |
| 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 (range 0.5-7.6 years) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
| Language evaluation | WAB (except BDAE in 1 patient), reading pseudowords, word stem completion, verb generation, reading single words |
| Aphasia severity | AQ range 74-97 (missing in 1 patient) |
| Aphasia type | 3 anomic, 1 Broca's, 1 not stated, 1 recovered |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
| Lesion extent | Range 10.7-117.5 cc |
| Lesion location | L IFG, extending to neighboring areas in most cases |
| Participants notes | Of the 14 controls, 6 were studied with PET and 8 with fMRI |
| Modality | PET and 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 961 EXACT HR; Siemens Vision 1.5 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (fMRI timing description is inconsistent) |
| Design type | Mixed |
| Total images acquired | PET: 10; fMRI: 384-768 |
| 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 | 1 patient scanned on different PET scanner, and not scanned with fMRI; controls had different fMRI sequence to patients |
| Language condition | Word stem completion (PET) |
| Control condition | Rest (PET) |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
| 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? | Yes |
| Control activation notes | L IFG, L ITG, L anterior fusiform |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Language condition | Word stem completion (fMRI) |
| Control condition | Rest (fMRI) |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
| 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? | 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? | Yes |
| Control activation notes | L IFG, L intraparietal sulcus |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Word stem completion (PET) vs rest (PET) |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia 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? | No, different |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Yes, matched |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Unclear or not stated |
| Software | not stated |
| Voxelwise p | — |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | Correction for multiple comparisons unclear; there may be circularity in only correcting for the number of regions that seemed to show differences |
| Findings | ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R IFG
↑ R Heschl's gyrus
↓ L IFG |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Word stem completion (fMRI) vs rest (fMRI) |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (n = 5) 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 | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
| Software | not stated |
| Voxelwise p | — |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 1888 |
| Findings | ↑ R IFG
↓ L IFG |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Word stem completion (fMRI) vs rest (fMRI) |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (n = 5) 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 | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) R IFG; (2) SMA |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Not stated but seem to be functional |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | Possibly circular because not clear how ROIs defined |
| Findings | ↑ R IFG |
| Findings notes | — |
