Aphasia Neuroplasticity Review

Nenert et al. (2017)

Reference

Authors	Nenert R, Allendorfer JB, Martin AM, Banks C, Ball A, Vannest J, Dietz AR, Szaflarski JP
Title	Neuroimaging correlates of post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation in a pilot randomized trial of constraint-induced aphasia therapy
Reference	Med Sci Monit 2017; 23: 3489-3507
PMID	28719572
DOI	10.12659/msm.902301

Participants

Language	US English
Inclusion criteria	At least mild aphasia per TT
Number of individuals with aphasia	19
Number of control participants	38
Were any of the participants included in any previous studies?	Yes (patients are a subset of the 24 participants in Szaflarski et al. (2015), a clinical trial on CIAT)
Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (CIAT group: mean 58.0 ± 10.6 years; untreated group: mean 50.3 ± 13.3 years)
Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched?	Yes (males: 11; females: 8)
Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched?	No (right: 17; left: 0; other: 2; 2 patients "atypical": unclear whether L or mixed)
Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design?	Yes (CIAT group: mean 60.2 ± 48.9 months; untreated group: mean 41.9 ± 30.0 months; all > 1 year)
To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized?	Severity only
Language evaluation	TT, PPVT, BNT, semantic fluency, phonemic fluency, communicative activities log
Aphasia severity	6 mild (2 control, 4 CIAT); 5 moderate (3 control, 2 CIAT); 8 severe (3 control, 5 CIAT)
Aphasia type	Not stated
First stroke only?	Yes
Stroke type	Ischemic only
To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized?	Lesion overlay
Lesion extent	Not stated
Lesion location	L MCA
Participants notes	—

Imaging

Modality	fMRI
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, ~3 weeks later; T3: 3 months after the end of treatment
If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points?	CIAT, 4 hours/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks
Is the scanner described?	No (Philips 3 Tesla or Siemens 3 Tesla; models not stated)
Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate?	Yes
Design type	Block
Total images acquired	600
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	—

Conditions

Are the conditions clearly described?

Yes

Condition	Response type	Repetitions	All groups could do?	All individuals could do?
semantic decision	Button press	10	Unknown	Unknown
tone decision	Button press	10	Unknown	Unknown
verb generation	Multiple words (covert)	10	Unknown	Unknown
finger tapping	Other	10	Unknown	Unknown

Conditions notes

Behavioral data are provided for the semantic decision and tone decision tasks, but the denominator is unclear; a post-scan recognition test for verb generation is reported, but this cannot confirm verb generation performance

Contrasts

Are the contrasts clearly described?

Yes

Contrast 1: semantic decision vs tone decision

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	Appear mismatched at least in healthy controls in Table 3
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	Lateralized frontal, temporal, and parietal
Contrast notes	—

Contrast 2: verb generation vs finger tapping

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	—

Analyses

Are the analyses clearly described?

Yes

Voxelwise analysis 1

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia CIAT T2 (n = 11) vs untreated T2 (n = 8)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (no treatment effect)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear similar
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L somato-motor ↑ L superior parietal ↑ L brainstem ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R somato-motor ↑ R superior parietal
Findings notes	Based on coordinates in Table 4

Voxelwise analysis 2

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia CIAT T3 (n = 11) vs untreated T3 (n = 8)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (no treatment effect)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, no test
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	—
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L superior parietal ↑ L anterior temporal ↑ L hippocampus/MTL ↑ R orbitofrontal ↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↓ R IFG pars orbitalis ↓ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↓ R posterior STS
Findings notes	Based on coordinates in Table 4

Voxelwise analysis 3

First level contrast	Verb generation vs finger tapping
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia CIAT T2 (n = 11) vs untreated T2 (n = 8)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (no treatment effect)
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	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↓ L precuneus ↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ R posterior STS ↓ R anterior temporal ↓ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Findings notes	Based on coordinates in Table 4

Voxelwise analysis 4

First level contrast	Verb generation vs finger tapping
Analysis class	Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia CIAT T3 (n = 11) vs untreated T3 (n = 8)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (no treatment effect)
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	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R basal ganglia ↓ L anterior temporal ↓ R posterior STS ↓ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 5

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia CIAT T1 (n = 11) 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?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L orbitofrontal ↑ L hippocampus/MTL ↑ R IFG pars opercularis ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R supramarginal gyrus ↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG ↑ R anterior temporal ↑ R anterior cingulate ↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 6

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia CIAT T2 (n = 11) 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?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L anterior cingulate ↑ R IFG pars opercularis ↑ R insula ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R supramarginal gyrus ↑ R Heschl's gyrus ↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L cerebellum ↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 7

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia CIAT T3 (n = 11) 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?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L orbitofrontal ↑ L anterior cingulate ↑ L hippocampus/MTL ↑ R superior parietal ↓ L cerebellum ↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ R anterior temporal ↓ R cerebellum
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 8

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia untreated T1 (n = 8) 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?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R somato-motor ↓ L IFG pars orbitalis ↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L angular gyrus ↓ L mid temporal ↓ L anterior temporal ↓ R IFG pars orbitalis ↓ R angular gyrus ↓ R anterior temporal ↓ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 9

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia untreated T2 (n = 8) 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?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but more so on the tone decision task
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R orbitofrontal ↑ R mid temporal ↓ L IFG pars orbitalis ↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L orbitofrontal ↓ L intraparietal sulcus ↓ L superior parietal ↓ L anterior cingulate ↓ L brainstem ↓ R IFG pars orbitalis ↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ R inferior parietal lobule ↓ R supramarginal gyrus ↓ R anterior temporal ↓ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↓ R hippocampus/MTL
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 10

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia untreated T3 (n = 8) 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?	Appear mismatched
Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast?	Unknown, not reported
Behavioral data notes	Patients less accurate than controls on both tasks, but not significantly for the semantic decision task, and more so on the tone decision task
Type of analysis	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R orbitofrontal ↑ R superior parietal ↑ R cerebellum ↓ L orbitofrontal ↓ L mid temporal ↓ L anterior temporal ↓ L posterior cingulate ↓ L cerebellum ↓ L hippocampus/MTL ↓ R angular gyrus ↓ R anterior temporal
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 11

First level contrast	Verb generation vs finger tapping
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia CIAT T1 (n = 11) 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	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L dorsal precentral ↑ L superior parietal ↑ R cerebellum ↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ R posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 12

First level contrast	Verb generation vs finger tapping
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia CIAT T2 (n = 11) 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	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L dorsal precentral ↑ L anterior cingulate ↓ L IFG pars orbitalis ↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L superior parietal ↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↓ L occipital ↓ R IFG pars orbitalis
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 13

First level contrast	Verb generation vs finger tapping
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia CIAT T3 (n = 11) 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	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L somato-motor ↑ L anterior cingulate ↑ L posterior cingulate ↓ L IFG pars orbitalis ↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ L superior parietal ↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ R mid temporal
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 14

First level contrast	Verb generation vs finger tapping
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia untreated T1 (n = 8) 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	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L superior parietal ↑ L occipital ↑ L cerebellum ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R cerebellum ↓ L IFG pars orbitalis ↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↓ L cerebellum ↓ R superior parietal
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 15

First level contrast	Verb generation vs finger tapping
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia untreated T2 (n = 8) 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	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R SMA/medial prefrontal ↑ R angular gyrus ↑ R posterior STG ↑ R posterior cingulate ↑ R cerebellum ↓ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L superior parietal ↓ L anterior temporal ↓ L posterior inferior temporal gyrus/fusiform gyrus ↓ L occipital ↓ R superior parietal ↓ R occipital ↓ R cerebellum
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 16

First level contrast	Verb generation vs finger tapping
Analysis class	Cross-sectional aphasia vs control
Group(s)	Aphasia untreated T3 (n = 8) 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	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L superior parietal ↑ L anterior temporal ↑ L occipital ↑ R insula ↑ R ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction ↑ R orbitofrontal ↑ R occipital ↑ R cerebellum ↓ L IFG pars orbitalis ↓ L SMA/medial prefrontal ↓ L superior parietal ↓ L occipital ↓ R insula ↓ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↓ R cerebellum ↓ R basal ganglia
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 17

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ 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	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ R insula ↑ R anterior cingulate ↑ R cerebellum ↑ R brainstem ↑ R basal ganglia
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 18

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 vs T2
Covariate	Δ BNT
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (no treatment effect)
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	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ R somato-motor ↑ R posterior MTG ↑ R thalamus
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 19

First level contrast	Verb generation vs finger tapping
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T2 vs T1
Covariate	Δ 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	Voxelwise
Search volume	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ R orbitofrontal ↑ R mid temporal
Findings notes	—

Voxelwise analysis 20

First level contrast	Verb generation vs finger tapping
Analysis class	Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure
Group(s)	Aphasia T3 vs T2
Covariate	Δ BNT
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (no treatment effect)
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	Voxels spared in all patients
Correction for multiple comparisons	Clusterwise correction based on arbitrary cluster extent
Software	SPM12
Voxelwise p	.01
Cluster extent	50 voxels (size not stated)
Statistical details	—
Findings	↑ L dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ↑ R orbitofrontal
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 1

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia ANOVA including T1, T2, T3
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 similar
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?	5
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) cerebellar LI; (4) fronto-parietal LI; (5) Broca's LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 2

First level contrast	Semantic decision vs tone decision
Analysis class	Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	(Aphasia CIAT (n = 11) T1 ≠ T2 ≠ T3) vs (untreated (n = 8) T1 ≠ T2 ≠ T3)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (no treatment effect)
Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast?	Appear similar
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?	5
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) cerebellar LI; (4) fronto-parietal LI; (5) Broca's LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 3

First level contrast	Verb generation vs finger tapping
Analysis class	Longitudinal change in aphasia
Group(s)	Aphasia ANOVA including T1, T2, T3
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?	5
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) cerebellar LI; (4) fronto-parietal LI; (5) Broca's LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

ROI analysis 4

First level contrast	Verb generation vs finger tapping
Analysis class	Longitudinal between two groups with aphasia
Group(s)	(Aphasia CIAT (n = 11) T1 ≠ T2 ≠ T3) vs (untreated (n = 8) T1 ≠ T2 ≠ T3)
Covariate	—
Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved?	Somewhat (no treatment effect)
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?	5
What are the ROI(s)?	(1) frontal LI; (2) temporo-parietal LI; (3) cerebellar LI; (4) fronto-parietal LI; (5) Broca's LI
How are the ROI(s) defined?
Correction for multiple comparisons	No correction
Statistical details	—
Findings	None
Findings notes	—

Notes

Excluded analyses

(1) pretreatment comparisons between CIAT and untreated groups; (2) Figure 4 caption states that LI values for control group are different to the aphasia groups, but there is no statistical test in support of this