| Language | UK English |
| Inclusion criteria | MCA; mild-moderate non-fluent aphasia; no severe comprehension deficit |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 6 (plus 6 excluded: 4 for health risks; 2 for technical problems and data loss) |
| 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 (range 41-76 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 5; females: 1) |
| 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 17-234 months (including excluded patients)) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity only |
| Language evaluation | BDAE, TT |
| Aphasia severity | Mild-moderate; T1: TT range 15-49 errors (including 2 excluded patients) |
| Aphasia type | Not stated |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | L MCA |
| Participants notes | Patient numbers in tables 1 and 2 appear not to correspond with patient numbers later in the paper |
| Modality | fMRI |
| Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
| If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, ~2 weeks later |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | CIAT, 3-4 hours/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | 76 |
| 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? | No (lesion impact not addressed) |
| Imaging notes | sparse sampling |
| Language condition | Listening to sentences (high and low ambiguity) |
| Control condition | Listening to signal-correlated noise |
| 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no timeable task |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
| Control activation notes | Some control data in Rodd et al. (2005), but half of the participants were performing a probe judgment task, unlike in the present study |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Language condition | Listening to high ambiguity sentences |
| Control condition | Listening to low ambiguity sentences |
| 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no timeable task |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | No |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Unknown |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
| Control activation notes | Some control data in Rodd et al. (2005), but half of the participants were performing a probe judgment task, unlike in the present study |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to sentences (high and low ambiguity) vs listening to signal-correlated noise |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
| 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
| Software | SPM8 |
| Voxelwise p | — |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | Qualitative generalization across individuals on pp. 8-9 |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to high ambiguity sentences vs listening to low ambiguity sentences |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
| 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG; (2) R IFG; (3) L ITG; (4) R ITG; the temporal ROIs are described as STG but they seem to be in the ITG |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Defined based on control data from Rodd et al. (2005) but the coordinates do not match so it is not clear exactly how they were defined |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | ANOVA of timepoint by hemisphere by site, with a significant interaction of timepoint by hemisphere |
| Findings | ↑ R IFG
↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus |
| Findings notes | All signal changes were negative (i.e. less activation for ambiguous sentences), making interpretation challenging |
