| Language | UK English |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 14 |
| Number of control participants | 15 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (reanalysis of same dataset from Tyler et al. (2011)) |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 56 ± 12 years, range 35-77 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 11; females: 3) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 14; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 8 ± 9 years, range 2-40 years) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Not at all |
| Language evaluation | Sentence-picture matching, grammaticality judgment, lexical decision, phonological discrimination, semantic categorization, sentence repetition, word repetition |
| Aphasia severity | Not stated |
| Aphasia type | Not stated |
| 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 |
| Participants notes | 1 patient had post-surgical haematoma rather than stroke (per Tyler et al., 2011) |
| 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 (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (length of stimuli not described) |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | 1059 |
| 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 (lacks explanation of event durations) |
| Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Imaging notes | — |
| Language condition | Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") |
| Control condition | Listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") |
| 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? | Yes |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Yes |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Yes |
| Control activation notes | Control data in Tyler et al. (2011); L frontal and temporal |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between subordinate and dominant sentences (dominance effect) |
| 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 | Clusterwise correction with with GRFT and lenient voxelwise p |
| Software | SPM8 |
| Voxelwise p | .01 |
| Cluster extent | Based on GRFT |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L insula
↑ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↑ L mid temporal |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Modulation of L IFG connectivity by dominance effect |
| 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 | Complex |
| Statistical details | A PPI analysis was carried out with the L IFG as the seed region. Correlations were computed between voxelwise modulation of connectivity with this region, and a behavioral measure of syntactic processing, which was the dominance effect: the difference in percent of unacceptable judgments between subordinate and dominant sentences. The resultant SPM was thresholded at voxelwise p < .01 (CDT), then corrected for multiple corrections based on cluster extent and GRFT using SPM8. |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | Patients with better syntactic performance had more connectivity from the L IFG seed region to L pMTG and adjacent areas (including the insula); pMTG also significant at voxelwise p < .001 in Figure 2B, corrected for multiple comparisons with GRFT |
| First level contrast | Listening to ambiguous sentences with subordinate resolution ("subordinate") vs listening to ambiguous sentences with dominant resolution ("dominant") |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Modulation of L pMTG connectivity by dominance effect |
| 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 | Complex |
| Statistical details | A similar PPI analysis was carried out with the L pMTG as the seed region. Thresholding was the same as in the previous analysis. |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
