| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 32 |
| Number of control participants | 32 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (some participants included in Allendorfer et al. (2012)) |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 51.8 ± 15.1 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 18; females: 14) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 3.2 ± 3.1 years, > 6 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Not at all |
| Language evaluation | Not stated |
| Aphasia severity | "complete or almost complete" recovery in a "substantial proportion" of the patients |
| 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 | 60.1 ± 57.5 cc |
| Lesion location | L MCA |
| Participants notes | One participant was < 18 years old at time of stroke; there was also a perinatal stroke group, not relevant for this review; 3 participants were excluded but it is not stated whether they were adult or perinatal patients. |
| 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 (Philips Achieva 3 Tesla, except for 1 patient and 1 control on a Bruker 3 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | Block |
| Total images acquired | 165 |
| 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 | Verb generation |
| Control condition | Finger tapping |
| 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? | Somewhat |
| Control activation notes | Control data in Szaflarski et al. (2008); frontal activation L-lateralized, temporal less so |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs finger tapping |
| 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 | No direct comparison |
| Software | CCHIPS |
| Voxelwise p | — |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on pp. 5-6 (page numbers refer to PMC author manuscript) |
| Findings | ↓ L inferior parietal lobule
↓ L superior parietal
↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L occipital
↓ R occipital |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs finger tapping |
| 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? | 3 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) frontal LI; (2) temporal LI; (3) language network LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↓ LI (language network)
↓ LI (frontal) |
| Findings notes | Temporal LI was also marginally significantly reduced (p = .08) |
