| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | Aphasia with significant recovery over months to years (ADPASS > 70th percentile) |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 6 (plus 2 excluded: 1 unable to reliably describe performance post-scan; 1 due to head motion) |
| Number of control participants | 37 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 20-56 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 1; females: 5) |
| 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 5-32 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
| Language evaluation | ADP |
| Aphasia severity | ADPASS percentile range 73-99 |
| Aphasia type | 3 anomic, 1 conduction, 1 recovered, 1 transcortical sensory |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Ischemic only |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
| Lesion extent | Extents are reported in three dimensions |
| Lesion location | 4 L MCA, 2 L ICA |
| 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? | Yes (Magnex Scientific 3 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | Block |
| Total images acquired | 40 |
| Are the imaging acquisition parameters, including coverage, adequately described and appropriate? | Yes (axial, perisylvian only) |
| Is preprocessing and intrasubject coregistration adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Is first level model fitting adequately described and appropriate? | No (first level cross-correlation analysis unclear) |
| Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | N/A—no intersubject normalization |
| Imaging notes | — |
| Language condition | Picture naming |
| Control condition | Viewing nonsense drawings |
| 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? | 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? | Unknown |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
| Control activation notes | Insufficient data to assess the control activation pattern |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming vs viewing nonsense drawings |
| 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 | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Mixed |
| How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG and MFG; (2) L pSTG, AG and SMG; (3) R IFG and MFG; (4) R pSTG, AG and SMG; (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | (1-4) individual anatomical images; activation quantified in terms of extent |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ R IFG
↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R posterior STG
↓ LI (frontal)
↓ LI (temporal) |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming vs viewing nonsense drawings |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Picture naming (outside scanner) |
| 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 | Mixed |
| How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG and MFG; (2) L pSTG, AG and SMG; (3) R IFG and MFG; (4) R pSTG, AG and SMG; (5) frontal LI; (6) temporal LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | (1-4) individual anatomical images; activation quantified in terms of extent |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ LI (frontal) |
| Findings notes | — |
