| Language | UK English |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 24 |
| Number of control participants | 11 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (range 32-85 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 18; females: 6) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 24; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | No (mean 32 months, range 2-204 months; combines subacute and chronic patients) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
| Language evaluation | CAT (missing in two participants) |
| Aphasia severity | Not stated |
| Aphasia type | Not stated |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | 6 L but no temporal damage, 9 L temporal damage excluding anterior temporal cortex, 9 L temporal damage including anterior temporal cortex |
| Participants notes | Results of control participants previously reported in Crinion et al. (2003) |
| Modality | PET (rCBF) |
| 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 (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR++/966 (16 patients and all controls) or GE Advance (8 patients)) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | PET |
| Total images acquired | 12-16 |
| 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 | two different scanners used for patients, but not for controls |
| Language condition | Listening to narrative speech |
| Control condition | Listening to reversed speech |
| 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | N/A, no timeable task |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Are control data reported in this paper or another that is referenced? | Somewhat |
| 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 | 11 participants; L-lateralized posterior temporal, bilateral anterior temporal, no frontal |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Voxels spared in all patients |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise FWE correction |
| Software | SPM99 |
| Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia without temporal lobe damage (n = 6) 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Voxels spared in all included patients |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise FWE correction |
| Software | SPM99 |
| Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal lobe damage (n = 18) 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Voxels spared in all included patients |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Voxelwise FWE correction |
| Software | SPM99 |
| Voxelwise p | FWE p < .05 |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with no temporal damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) or posterior temporal damage sparing anterior temporal cortex (n = 13) |
| Covariate | Auditory sentence comprehension (CAT) |
| 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
| 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 ATL |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activation in the control group |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | Same result obtained with or without excluding one outlier; two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses |
| Findings | ↑ L anterior temporal |
| Findings notes | More activity in patients with better auditory sentence comprehension |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with no temporal damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) or posterior temporal damage sparing anterior temporal cortex (n = 13) |
| Covariate | Time post onset |
| 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
| 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 ATL |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activation in the control group |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | Two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal damage excluding anterior temporal cortex (n = 9) vs with no temporal lobe damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) (n = 4) |
| 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
| 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 ATL |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activation in the control group |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | Two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses |
| Findings | ↓ L anterior temporal |
| Findings notes | Patients with posterior temporal damage had less signal change |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with temporal damage excluding anterior temporal cortex (n = 9) 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
| 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 ATL |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activation in the control group |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | Circular because ROI defined in one group; two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses |
| Findings | ↓ L anterior temporal |
| Findings notes | Large difference 2.7 ± 0.8 (patients) vs 6.3 ± 1.4 (controls) makes finding suggestive even in light of the circularity |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with no temporal damage (excluding 1 with missing behavioral data and 1 outlier) or posterior temporal damage sparing anterior temporal cortex (n = 13) |
| Covariate | Auditory single word comprehension (CAT) |
| 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? | N/A, no behavioral measure |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
| 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 ATL |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Activation in the control group |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | Two other ROIs are described in the methods, but never used in any analyses |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | R = 0.39; p > 0.1; seems to be a clear trend so lack of significance may reflect only lack of power |
