| Language | UK English |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 27 |
| Number of control participants | 0 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (patients are a subset of those in Geranmayeh et al. (2016)) |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 59.1 ± 10.8 years, range 39-77 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 18; females: 9) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 26; left: 1) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (T1: 15 ± 7.6 days (range 5-35 days); T2: 108 ± 26 days (range 87-200 days)) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Not at all |
| Language evaluation | CAT, QPA |
| Aphasia severity | Not stated |
| Aphasia type | Not stated |
| First stroke only? | No |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Mean 41.4 ± 44.4 cc, range 3.8-173.9 cc |
| Lesion location | L; modest R involvement in 3 cases |
| Participants notes | 24 control participants are described, but no imaging data from the controls are analyzed in this paper |
| Modality | fMRI |
| Is the study cross-sectional or longitudinal? | Longitudinal—recovery |
| If longitudinal, at what time point(s) were imaging data acquired? | T1: 15 ± 7.6 days (range 5-35 days); T2: 108 ± 26 days (range 87-200 days) |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Variable modest amounts of SLT (range 0-18 hours) reported in Supplementary Table 1 |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | 213 |
| 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 | sparse sampling; mini-blocks of 2-4 trials |
| Language condition | Propositional speech production |
| 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? | Yes |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | No |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
| Control activation notes | Control data in Geranmayeh et al. (2014); speech not language; relevant activations are bilateral |
| Contrast notes | Not entirely clear that the whole brain analysis is indeed propositional speech production vs rest; a contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting is also used to define the preSMA/dACC ROI |
| First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia mean of T1, T2 |
| Covariate | Simultaneous Δ (T2 vs T1) number of appropriate information-carrying words |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (potentially confounded by T1 and T2 language function; language function at T1 was predictive of change in language function) |
| 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 | T1 AICW correlated with change in AICW, but not stated whether T2 AICW correlated with change in AICW |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent |
| Software | FSL |
| Voxelwise p | .05 |
| Cluster extent | 1.6 cc |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ R somato-motor
↑ R posterior STS
↑ R anterior cingulate |
| Findings notes | Findings based on figures and coordinates; the pre-SMA/dACC peak noted to survive FWE correction at p < .001 |
| First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal change in aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia 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, different |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Number of AICW increased |
| Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | L pre-SMA |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Peak voxel of the contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting in people with aphasia |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | No main effect of session in session by language recovery ANOVA |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | Δ number of appropriate information-carrying words |
| 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 | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | L pre-SMA |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Peak voxel of the contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting in people with aphasia |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | No interaction of session by language recovery in ANOVA |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia mean of T1, T2 |
| Covariate | Simultaneous Δ (T2 vs T1) number of appropriate information-carrying words |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (potentially confounded by T1 and T2 language function; language function at T1 was predictive of change in language function) |
| 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 | T1 AICW correlated with change in AICW, but not stated whether T2 AICW correlated with change in AICW |
| Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | L pre-SMA |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Peak voxel of the contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting in people with aphasia |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal |
| Findings notes | Patients with more pre-SMA activity improved more |
| First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia mean of T1, T2 |
| Covariate | Simultaneous Δ (T2 vs T1) number of appropriate information-carrying words |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (potentially confounded by T1 and T2 language function; language function at T1 was predictive of change in language function) |
| 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 | T1 AICW correlated with change in AICW, but not stated whether T2 AICW correlated with change in AICW |
| Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | L pre-SMA |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Peak voxel of the contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting in people with aphasia |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | Lesion size covariate |
| Findings | ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal |
| Findings notes | Patients with more pre-SMA activity improved more |
| First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia mean of T1, T2 |
| Covariate | Simultaneous Δ (T2 vs T1) number of appropriate information-carrying words |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Yes (this analysis is appropriate because T1 behavior is included in model) |
| 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 | T1 AICW correlated with change in AICW, but not stated whether T2 AICW correlated with change in AICW |
| Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | L pre-SMA |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Peak voxel of the contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting in people with aphasia |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | Lesion size, T1 performance, and age covariates |
| Findings | ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal |
| Findings notes | Patients with more pre-SMA activity improved more |
| First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia mean of T1, T2 |
| Covariate | Subsequent outcome (T2) number of appropriate information-carrying words |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (mathematically equivalent to the previous analysis, because of the inclusion of T1 performance as a covariate) |
| 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 | T1 AICW correlated with change in AICW, but not stated whether T2 AICW correlated with change in AICW |
| Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | L pre-SMA |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Peak voxel of the contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting in people with aphasia |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | Lesion size, T1 performance, and age covariates |
| Findings | ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
| Covariate | Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) number of appropriate information-carrying words |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (potentially confounded by T1 language function; language function at T1 was predictive of change in language function) |
| 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 | T1 AICW correlated with change in AICW |
| Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | L pre-SMA |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Peak voxel of the contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting in people with aphasia |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Propositional speech production vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 |
| Covariate | Previous Δ (T2 vs T1) number of appropriate information-carrying words |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | No (the logic behind correlating activation changes and language outcome is unclear) |
| 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 | T1 AICW correlated with change in AICW, but not stated whether T2 AICW correlated with change in AICW |
| Type of analysis | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | L pre-SMA |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Peak voxel of the contrast of target decision vs mean of propositional speech and counting in people with aphasia |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal |
| Findings notes | — |
