| Language | German |
| Inclusion criteria | Lesion including L pSTG; moderate-to-severe Wernicke's aphasia in the subacute period; now recovered and not aphasic per formal testing; able to perform verb generation task |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 6 |
| Number of control participants | 6 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (mean 58 years, range 50-66 years; controls were younger: mean 35 years; range 27-50 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 6; females: 0) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 6; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (range 5-117 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
| Language evaluation | AAT |
| Aphasia severity | Recovered; not aphasic per formal testing |
| Aphasia type | Recovered, but all had moderate-severe Wernicke's aphasia in the subacute period |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Ischemic only |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | Posterior L MCA infarct, lesion to the L posterior STG usually extending to MTG and AG |
| Participants notes | 6 patients were selected from a database of 600 carefully documented cases |
| 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 ECAT 953/15) |
| 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 (axial; field of view = 5.4 cm; perisylvian only) |
| 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 | — |
| Language condition | Verb generation |
| Control condition | Rest |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
| Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
| 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? | Somewhat |
| 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 | L posterior temporal, IFG and ventral precentral gyrus, much smaller activations in the R hemisphere |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Language condition | Pseudoword repetition |
| Control condition | Rest |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
| Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for motor demands? | Yes |
| 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? | Somewhat |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | Somewhat |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
| Control activation notes | L posterior temporal only; similar but less extensive activation in the R hemisphere |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs rest |
| 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? | Appear mismatched |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | In practice trials, patients produced 1.5 words on average per prompt, not all of which were verbs, while controls 2.3 words on average per prompt, almost all of which were verbs |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Perisylvian |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
| Software | SPM |
| Voxelwise p | — |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 729 (the word "significant" is used) |
| Findings | ↑ R IFG
↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG |
| Findings notes | Based more on Figure 2 than the text |
| First level contrast | Pseudoword repetition vs rest |
| 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? | Appear similar |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | All participants are reported to have had no difficulties in performing the repetition task |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Perisylvian |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
| Software | SPM |
| Voxelwise p | — |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | Qualitative comparison on p. 729 (the word "significant" is used) |
| Findings | ↑ L ventral precentral/inferior frontal junction
↑ R IFG
↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG
↓ L posterior STG/STS/MTG |
| Findings notes | Based more on Figure 2 than the text |
