| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 27 |
| Number of control participants | 0 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (recovered: mean 50 ± 13 years; non-recovered: mean 51 ± 13 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 15; females: 12) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 27; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (recovered: mean 2.1 ± 2.1 years; non-recovered: mean 4.9 ± 3.1 years) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity only |
| Language evaluation | TT, BNT, semantic fluency, phonemic fluency, PPVT, complex ideation subtest of BDAE |
| Aphasia severity | Recovered: TT mean 43 ± 1, ≥ 41; non-recovered: TT mean 23 ± 12, < 41 |
| 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 | Recovered: median 9.2 cc, range 2.2-26.5 cc; non-recovered: median 74 cc, range 5.1-206.0 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 | Block |
| Total images acquired | 330 |
| 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 | Semantic decision |
| Control condition | Tone decision |
| 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? | Appear mismatched |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Accuracy appears similar in the non-recovered group, but not in the recovered group |
| 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 Kim et al. (2011) and Szaflarski et al. (2008); L frontal and temporal, plus other semantic regions |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia not recovered (n = 18) vs recovered (n = 9) |
| 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? | Appear mismatched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Interaction of group by condition not reported; non-recovered patients were significantly less accurate only on the semantic decision condition, but they actually showed a smaller difference between conditions than the recovered patients |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on 3dClustSim |
| Software | AFNI |
| Voxelwise p | .05 |
| Cluster extent | 4.16 cc |
| Statistical details | Cluster-defining threshold (CDT) p < 0.05 too lenient |
| Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
↑ L superior parietal
↑ L cerebellum
↑ R cerebellum
↓ R posterior STG |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered) |
| Covariate | BNT |
| 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 | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Familywise error (FWE) |
| Statistical details | Circular because defined based on recovered status |
| Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered) |
| Covariate | Semantic fluency |
| 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 | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Familywise error (FWE) |
| Statistical details | Circular because defined based on recovered status |
| Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered) |
| Covariate | Single word comprehension (PPVT) |
| 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 | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Familywise error (FWE) |
| Statistical details | Circular because defined based on recovered status |
| Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered) |
| Covariate | BDAE complex ideation subtest |
| 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 | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Familywise error (FWE) |
| Statistical details | Circular because defined based on recovered status |
| Findings | ↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered) |
| Covariate | Phonemic fluency |
| 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 | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Familywise error (FWE) |
| Statistical details | Circular because defined based on recovered status |
| Findings | ↓ R posterior STG |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision vs tone decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia (recovered and non-recovered) |
| Covariate | Semantic decision 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? | 4 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) bilateral cerebellum; (2) R pSTG; (3) L superior parietal lobule; (4) L superior frontal gyrus |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions that were differentially recruited between recovered and non-recovered patients; average t scores from individual SPMs |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Familywise error (FWE) |
| Statistical details | Circular because defined based on recovered status |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
