| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 12 (plus 2 excluded: 1 for illness; 1 for MRI contraindication or personal conflict (inconsistent information provided)) |
| Number of control participants | 0 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (same data as Dietz et al. (2016), which is a methodological paper) |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (AAC group: range 39-63 years; usual care group: range 47-71 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 5; females: 7) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 11; left: 1) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (AAC group: range 16-170 months; usual care group: range 38-105 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
| Language evaluation | WAB, Reading Comprehension Battery for Aphasia |
| Aphasia severity | AAC group: AQ range 37.6-82.4; usual care group: AQ range 36.7-89.2 |
| Aphasia type | AAC group: 2 Broca's, 1 anomic, 1 conduction, 1 global, 1 Wernicke's; usual care group: 2 anomic, 2 Broca's, 1 conduction, 1 Wernicke's |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Ischemic only |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
| Lesion extent | AAC group: range 7849-30570 voxels; usual care group: 1583-30110 voxels (voxel size not stated) |
| Lesion location | L MCA |
| Participants notes | — |
| 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, ~4 weeks later |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | AAC group: treatment aimed at teaching participants how to utilize AAC to facilitate discourse; usual care group: traditional SLT, not focused on discourse or AAC specifically |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (Philips Achieva 3 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | 135 |
| 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 (no description of HRF model, which is important given sparse sampling design) |
| Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | No (lesion impact not addressed) |
| Imaging notes | additional methodological details in Dietz et al. (2016) |
| Language condition | Verb generation (overt) |
| Control condition | Noun 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? | 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 | — |
| Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Yes |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
| Control activation notes | Control data in Allendorfer et al. (2012); somewhat L-lateralized frontal, temporal and parietal activations, but also extensive midline activation |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation (overt) vs noun repetition |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with AAC treatment (n = 6) T2 vs usual care T2 (n = 6) |
| Covariate | — |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (marginal treatment effect) |
| 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 | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | Frontal LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | Temporal LI calculated but not reported |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation (overt) vs noun repetition |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (both groups) T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | Δ WAB AQ |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (gain in AQ not tested for significance) |
| 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 | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | Frontal LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | Temporal LI calculated but not reported |
| Findings | ↑ LI (frontal) |
| Findings notes | — |
