| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | Some spared tissue in L IFG |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 14 (plus 2 excluded: 1 had no spared tissue in the L IFG; 1 had a R hemisphere stroke) |
| Number of control participants | 8 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (although not stated, it is apparent that many of the patients were included in Sandberg et al. (2015)) |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 59.7 years, range 48-75 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 10; females: 4) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 14; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 6 years, range 6 months-13 years) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
| Language evaluation | WAB, BNT, PPT, CLQT |
| Aphasia severity | AQ range 48.0-99.2 |
| Aphasia type | 4 anomic, 2 Broca's, 2 conduction, 2 transcortical motor, 1 anomic or transcortical motor, 1 Broca's or conduction, 1 "N/A", 1 Wernicke's or conduction |
| First stroke only? | Not stated |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| 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? | Yes (Philips Achieva 3 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (total images acquired not stated) |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | not stated |
| 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 | no smoothing |
| Language condition | Semantic feature decision (6 patients, 4 controls) or semantic relatedness decision (8 patients, 4 controls) |
| Control condition | Visual decision or pseudoword identity 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? | No, different |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
| 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 | 8 patients and 4 controls performed one paradigm, while 6 patients and 4 controls performed another; the data were combined based on the assumption that similar processes were implicated by the two contrasts |
| First level contrast | Semantic feature decision (6 patients, 4 controls) or semantic relatedness decision (8 patients, 4 controls) vs visual decision or pseudoword identity decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Semantic feature 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 | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 16 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars opercularis; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4) L SFG; (5) L MFG; (6) L MTG; (7) L AG/SMG; (8) L ACC; (9-16) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | AAL |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ L IFG pars triangularis |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic feature decision (6 patients, 4 controls) or semantic relatedness decision (8 patients, 4 controls) vs visual decision or pseudoword identity decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | WAB AQ |
| 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 | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 16 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars opercularis; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4) L SFG; (5) L MFG; (6) L MTG; (7) L AG/SMG; (8) L ACC; (9-16) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | AAL |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic feature decision (6 patients, 4 controls) or semantic relatedness decision (8 patients, 4 controls) vs visual decision or pseudoword identity decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| 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 | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 16 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars opercularis; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4) L SFG; (5) L MFG; (6) L MTG; (7) L AG/SMG; (8) L ACC; (9-16) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | AAL |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic feature decision (6 patients, 4 controls) or semantic relatedness decision (8 patients, 4 controls) vs visual decision or pseudoword identity decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | PPT |
| 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 | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 16 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG pars orbitalis; (2) L IFG pars opercularis; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4) L SFG; (5) L MFG; (6) L MTG; (7) L AG/SMG; (8) L ACC; (9-16) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | AAL |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic feature decision (6 patients, 4 controls) or semantic relatedness decision (8 patients, 4 controls) vs visual decision or pseudoword identity decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Lesion volume |
| 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, matched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | No correlation between lesion volume and accuracy, not clear whether control condition accuracy was also tested |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 8 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | As above but only in the R hemisphere |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | AAL |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ R supramarginal gyrus
↑ R angular gyrus
↑ R posterior MTG |
| Findings notes | MTG included anterior too; SMG/AG was single ROI |
| First level contrast | Semantic feature decision (6 patients, 4 controls) or semantic relatedness decision (8 patients, 4 controls) vs visual decision or pseudoword identity decision |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Lesion status of 8 ROIs |
| 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 | Complex |
| Statistical details | Multivariate mixed-effects linear regression analyses were used to identify relationships between structural damage to 8 regions, and functional activation in 16 regions. Results were corrected for multiple comparisons based on FDR. This analysis was not described in sufficient detail. |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | Sparing of the L ACC and L SFG was associated with more functional activation in many regions, however this is difficult to interpret since these regions were largely or completely spared in many patients. Damage to the L IFG pars orbitalis, L MTG and L AG/SMG was associated with activation of the L ACC, L SFG (and other regions) potentially indicative of compensatory processing. |
| First level contrast | Semantic feature decision (6 patients, 4 controls) or semantic relatedness decision (8 patients, 4 controls) vs visual decision or pseudoword identity decision |
| 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 | Complex |
| Statistical details | Correlations were computed between functional activation in 16 regions, and qualitatively compared between patients and controls (p. 123). There was no correction for multiple comparisons. |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | In controls, all regions were generally correlated with one another. This was largely true in patients too, with the exception of the R IFG pars orbitalis, which was negatively correlated with the L IFG. |
