| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | MCA; moderate-severe aphasia; mRS ≤ 3 |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 16 |
| Number of control participants | 32 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes ("part of a larger ongoing study", may overlap with other studies from this group) |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 54.4 ± 9.5 years, range 38-78 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 9; females: 7) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 16; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 3.7 ± 3.5 years, range 0.5-11.4 years) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
| Language evaluation | TT, PPVT, BNT, semantic and phonemic fluency, complex ideation subtest of BDAE |
| Aphasia severity | Moderate-severe; TT mean 25.5 ± 11.3; unclear how to reconcile moderate-severe severity with mostly anomic aphasia |
| Aphasia type | Mostly anomic with some non-fluent |
| First stroke only? | Not stated |
| Stroke type | Ischemic only |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
| Lesion extent | Range 2.8-248.9 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 (Phillips 3 Tesla; model not stated) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | Mixed |
| Total images acquired | 435 |
| 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 | sparse sampling |
| Language condition | Verb generation (covert, block) |
| Control condition | Finger tapping (block) |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
| Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | Yes |
| 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? | 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 | Strongly lateralized frontal and temporal activation |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Language condition | Verb generation (overt, event-related) |
| Control condition | Noun repetition (event-related) |
| 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? | Appear mismatched |
| 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 | Somewhat L-lateralized frontal, temporal and parietal activations, but also extensive midline activation |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Language condition | Verb generation (overt, event-related) |
| Control condition | Verb generation (covert, event-related) |
| 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? | Yes |
| 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? | Yes |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | N/A |
| Control activation notes | Bilateral speech motor activations, but also extensive midline activation |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation (covert, block) vs finger tapping (block) |
| 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 | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporal LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↓ LI (temporal) |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation (overt, event-related) vs noun repetition (event-related) |
| 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? | No, different |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Patients less accurate and produced less responses on both conditions, but the difference between groups was greater for verb generation |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporal LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↓ LI (frontal) |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation (overt, event-related) vs verb generation (covert, event-related) |
| 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? | No, different |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Overt performance differed, so covert performance probably did too |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Laterality indi(ces) |
| How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporal LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | Lack of lateralization in controls makes this analysis difficult to interpret |
| First level contrast | Verb generation (overt, event-related) vs noun repetition (event-related) |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Overt verb generation 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? | Accuracy is covariate |
| 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? | 3 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L MTG; (2) L SFG/CG; (3) left MFG |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions activated by the contrast of overt verb generation vs noun repetition in patients |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation (overt, event-related) vs verb generation (covert, event-related) |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Overt verb generation 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? | Accuracy is covariate |
| 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? | 2 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) R insula/IFG; (2) R STG |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Prominent R hemisphere activations for the contrast of overt and covert verb generation in patients |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
