| Language | French |
| Inclusion criteria | Naming deficit; good comprehension |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 10 |
| Number of control participants | 20 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (mean 53.8 ± 14.7 years; controls were younger) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 6; females: 4) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 10; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 7-102 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
| Language evaluation | Montreal-Toulouse Aphasia Battery |
| Aphasia severity | Mild (but had initially been severe) |
| Aphasia type | 4 anomic, 3 conduction, 2 Broca's, 1 AoS |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
| Lesion extent | Range 29.9-195.2 cc |
| Lesion location | L MCA |
| Participants notes | — |
| Modality | PET (rCBF) |
| 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, ~4 weeks later |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Lexical training, 15 minutes/day, 5 days/week, 4 weeks; the control group were trained to relearn foreign words that they had learned in school but since mostly forgotten |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens ECAT HR+) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | PET |
| Total images acquired | 6 |
| 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 | — |
| Language condition | Picture naming (native in patients; relearned foreign in controls) |
| Control condition | Rest |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
| 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? | No |
| 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 | — |
| Contrast notes | Presumably only the relearned foreign condition was used in controls (not the native condition), but this is not stated explicitly |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (native in patients; relearned foreign in controls) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | (Aphasia T2 vs T1) vs (control T2 vs T1) |
| 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, but attempt made |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Relearned foreign language was an attempt to equate to recovery in patients; still, patients improved less than controls, as shown by a significant interaction of group by time (p < .0001) |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
| Software | SPM2 |
| Voxelwise p | .01 |
| Cluster extent | 30 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | Nature of control contrast not clear; negative tail of contrast was masked to exclude lesioned areas, but the mask may have been more extensive than that |
| Findings | ↑ L orbitofrontal |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming (native in patients; relearned foreign in controls) vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | Δ picture naming 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 | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
| Software | SPM2 |
| Voxelwise p | .01 |
| Cluster extent | 30 voxels (size not stated) |
| Statistical details | Nature of control contrast not clear |
| Findings | ↑ R insula
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R orbitofrontal
↑ R anterior cingulate
↓ L intraparietal sulcus
↓ L precuneus
↓ L posterior cingulate
↓ R dorsal precentral
↓ R precuneus |
| Findings notes | — |
