| Language | German |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 12 |
| Number of control participants | 12 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (mean 49 + 14 years, range 30-71 years; controls were younger) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 9; females: 3) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | No (mean 1.9 ± 1.4 years, range 0.2-3.7 years; one non-chronic patient is included) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
| Language evaluation | AAT |
| Aphasia severity | Not stated |
| Aphasia type | 3 global, 3 Wernicke's, 2 amnestic, 2 Broca's, 2 unclassified |
| First stroke only? | Not stated |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | L MCA, with greatest overlap in the posterior STG |
| Participants notes | 15 controls were scanned but 3 were randomly excluded to match group sizes for jICA. |
| Modality | PET (rCBF) |
| 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 (CTI-Siemens HR+) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | PET |
| Total images acquired | 9 |
| 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 | — |
| Language condition | Lexical decision (words vs pseudowords) |
| Control condition | Lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words) |
| 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 | — |
| 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? | Yes |
| Control activation notes | The contrast activated a ventral part of the L IFG, along with L anterior cingulate and L DLPFC |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Lexical decision (words vs pseudowords) vs lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words) |
| 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? | 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 | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
| Software | SPM5 |
| Voxelwise p | .001 |
| Cluster extent | 0.64 cc |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ R posterior STG
↑ R Heschl's gyrus |
| Findings notes | Activation is 1105 voxels (> 8 cc) so quite convincing, but when the contrast was examined in the patient group, this region was not activated. |
| First level contrast | Lexical decision (words vs pseudowords) vs lexical decision (words vs reversed foreign words) |
| 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? | Unknown, not reported |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Complex |
| Statistical details | Joint ICA was performed on structural and functional contrast images using FIT 1.1b. Only 1 of the 8 components differed between groups in its loadings and was interpretable. The structural part of this component related to the patients' lesions. The functional part was thresholded at voxelwise p < .001 (CDT), arbitrary minimum cluster extent = 0.64 cc. |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | The component that differed between groups showed more activation for patients than controls in the L anterior temporal lobe, L cerebellum, R posterior STG, R anterior temporal lobe, R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus, R cerebellum, and R brainstem, and less activation in patients than controls in the L IFG, L anterior temporal lobe, L occipital lobe, L anterior cingulate, L cerebellum, L thalamus, and R IFG. |
