| Language | Australian English |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 8 |
| Number of control participants | 14 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 56.4 + 9.2 years; range 41-69 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 3; females: 5) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 8; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 52.3 + 49.8 months; range 17-170 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
| Language evaluation | WAB, BNT, PPT, CAT, picture naming from International Picture Naming Project Database |
| Aphasia severity | AQ range 57.3-91.6; 5 mild, 2 moderate, 1 mild-moderate |
| Aphasia type | 6 anomic, 2 conduction |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | L hemisphere |
| Participants notes | — |
| Modality | fMRI |
| Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—chronic treatment |
| If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: pre-treatment/chronic; T2: post-treatment, 5-6 weeks later; note that "immediate improvement" was measured at the end of SLT, a week or two prior to T2 scan |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | SLT with alternating semantic and phonological sessions, 3 days/week, 4 weeks |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (Bruker MedSpec 4 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | 610 |
| 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? | No (lesion impact not addressed) |
| Imaging notes | slow event-related design; sparse sampling |
| Language condition | Picture naming (phonological trained items, 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? | Unknown |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
| Control activation notes | Control data are described for naming untrained items; the data are reported only briefly in the text; it is notable that no speech motor, visual, or auditory activations are reported, as might be expected in a picture naming task |
| Contrast notes | Correct and incorrect trials were apparently modeled separately, but this is not clearly stated, nor are the criteria for deciding whether trials were correct; it is generally not clear which contrasts exactly were run |
| Language condition | Picture naming (semantic trained items, 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? | Unknown |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Unknown |
| Control activation notes | Control data are described for naming untrained items; the data are reported only briefly in the text; it is notable that no speech motor, visual, or auditory activations are reported, as might be expected in a picture naming task |
| Contrast notes | Correct and incorrect trials were apparently modeled separately, but this is not clearly stated, nor are the criteria for deciding whether trials were correct; it is generally not clear which contrasts exactly were run |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (phonological trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
| Covariate | Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) picture naming (phonological treated items) |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model) |
| 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 | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on 3dClustSim |
| Software | AFNI |
| Voxelwise p | .005 |
| Cluster extent | 0.999 cc |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (semantic trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
| Covariate | Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) picture naming (semantic treated items) |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model) |
| 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 | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on 3dClustSim |
| Software | AFNI |
| Voxelwise p | .005 |
| Cluster extent | 0.999 cc |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L basal ganglia |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (phonological trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 |
| Covariate | Previous Δ (T2 vs T1) picture naming (phonological treated items) |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (T2 activation not an appropriate measure of treatment-induced recovery because it reflects T2 performance) |
| 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 | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on 3dClustSim |
| Software | AFNI |
| Voxelwise p | .005 |
| Cluster extent | 0.999 cc |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L supramarginal gyrus
↑ R precuneus |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (semantic trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 |
| Covariate | Previous Δ (T2 vs T1) picture naming (semantic treated items) |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (T2 activation not an appropriate measure of treatment-induced recovery because it reflects T2 performance) |
| 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 | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on 3dClustSim |
| Software | AFNI |
| Voxelwise p | .005 |
| Cluster extent | 0.999 cc |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (phonological trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
| Covariate | Subsequent outcome (T2) picture naming |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (not appropriate to correlate T1 imaging with T2 behavior without T1 behavior in model) |
| 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 | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on 3dClustSim |
| Software | AFNI |
| Voxelwise p | .005 |
| Cluster extent | 0.999 cc |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (semantic trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
| Covariate | Subsequent outcome (T2) picture naming |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (not appropriate to correlate T1 imaging with T2 behavior without T1 behavior in model) |
| 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 | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on 3dClustSim |
| Software | AFNI |
| Voxelwise p | .005 |
| Cluster extent | 0.999 cc |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (phonological trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 |
| Covariate | Picture naming T2 |
| 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 | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on 3dClustSim |
| Software | AFNI |
| Voxelwise p | .005 |
| Cluster extent | 0.999 cc |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (semantic trained items, correct trials) vs viewing scrambled images |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 |
| Covariate | Picture naming T2 |
| 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 | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on 3dClustSim |
| Software | AFNI |
| Voxelwise p | .005 |
| Cluster extent | 0.999 cc |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
