| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 11 |
| 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? | Yes (mean 58.8 ± 14.7 years, range 33-78 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 6; females: 5) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 10-101 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
| Language evaluation | WAB; BNT |
| Aphasia severity | AQ range 31.8-91.5 |
| Aphasia type | 6 anomic, 4 Broca's, 1 transcortical motor; alternatively: 6 fluent, 5 non-fluent |
| First stroke only? | Not stated |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Range 3.0-342.2 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 (not stated) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (timing of picture presentation not clearly explained) |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | 120 |
| 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 | sparse sampling |
| Language condition | Picture naming (correct trials) |
| Control condition | Viewing scrambled images |
| 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? | Somewhat |
| Control activation notes | Control data in Fridriksson et al. (2007); motor activations are prominent; there is some L frontal activation but little temporal activation in either hemisphere |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Language condition | Picture naming (phonemic paraphasias) |
| Control condition | Picture naming (correct trials) |
| 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? | No, by design |
| 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? | N/A |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | N/A |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | N/A |
| Control activation notes | Control data N/A because controls do not typically make errors |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Language condition | Picture naming (semantic paraphasias) |
| Control condition | Picture naming (correct trials) |
| 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? | No, by design |
| 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? | N/A |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | N/A |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | N/A |
| Control activation notes | Control data N/A because controls do not typically make errors |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images |
| 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? | Yes, correct trials only |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p |
| Software | FSL (FEAT 5.4) |
| Voxelwise p | ~.01 (z > 2.3) |
| Cluster extent | Based on GRFT |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (phonemic paraphasias) vs picture naming (correct trials) |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional performance-defined conditions |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| 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, by design |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p |
| Software | FSL (FEAT 5.4) |
| Voxelwise p | ~.01 (z > 2.3) |
| Cluster extent | Based on GRFT |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L superior parietal
↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↑ L occipital |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (semantic paraphasias) vs picture naming (correct trials) |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional performance-defined conditions |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| 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, by design |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p |
| Software | FSL (FEAT 5.4) |
| Voxelwise p | ~.01 (z > 2.3) |
| Cluster extent | Based on GRFT |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
↑ R occipital |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Picture naming accuracy |
| 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 | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 5 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) R IFG/insula; (2) R motor/premotor; (3) R SMA; (4) R inferior parietal; (5) R superior temporal |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions activated for picture naming vs viewing scrambled images in aphasia |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ R IFG
↑ R insula |
| Findings notes | R IFG showed more activation in patients who produced more correct responses |
