| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | Moderate aphasia, L MCA |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 8 (plus 3 excluded: 2 metallic artifact; 1 seizure at time of stroke) |
| Number of control participants | 0 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (same patients as Szaflarski et al. (2011); different fMRI paradigm acquired in the same sessions) |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 54.4 ± 12.7 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 4; females: 4) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 8; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 5.3 ± 3.6 years) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
| Language evaluation | BNT; phonemic fluency, semantic fluency, complex ideation from BDAE, PPVT, communicative activities log |
| Aphasia severity | Moderate |
| Aphasia type | 4 Broca's, 3 anomic, 1 anomic/conduction |
| First stroke only? | Not stated |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Individual lesions |
| Lesion extent | Range 1.4-52.5 cc |
| Lesion location | L MCA |
| Participants notes | — |
| 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, ~2 weeks later |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | RTMS to residual activation near Broca's area, 5 sessions/week, 2 weeks |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (Varian Unity INOVA 4 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | Block |
| Total images acquired | 140 |
| 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 | — |
| 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 | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs finger tapping |
| 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? | Somewhat (patients improved only on semantic fluency) |
| 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 | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Software | SPM12 |
| Voxelwise p | .001 |
| Cluster extent | None |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L IFG pars opercularis
↑ R cerebellum
↑ R thalamus
↓ R anterior temporal
↓ R cerebellum |
| Findings notes | Based on description in text; it is noted that no regions survived FDR correction |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs finger tapping |
| 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? | Somewhat (patients improved only on semantic fluency) |
| 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 | Mixed |
| How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG; (2) R IFG; (3) frontal LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | First principal component of 8 mm spheres defined based on previously reported control peaks |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | False discovery rate (FDR) |
| Statistical details | Lesion volume included in model |
| Findings | ↑ L IFG
↓ R IFG
↑ LI (frontal) |
| Findings notes | — |
| 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 semantic fluency |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (patients improved only on semantic fluency) |
| 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 | Mixed |
| How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L IFG; (2) R IFG; (3) frontal LI |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | First principal component of 8 mm spheres defined based on previously reported control peaks |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | False discovery rate (FDR) |
| Statistical details | Lesion volume included in model |
| Findings | ↓ R IFG |
| Findings notes | Decreased R IFG activation was correlated with improved semantic fluency |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs finger tapping |
| 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? | Somewhat (patients improved only on semantic fluency) |
| 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 | PPI analyses were used to investigate change over time in modulation by verb generation of functional connectivity between L IFG and R IFG. |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | There was a significant decrease in modulation by verb generation of functional connectivity between L IFG and R IFG (p = 0.03). Prior to TMS, connectivity increased during verb generation compared to finger tapping, while after TMS, connectivity decreased during verb generation compared to finger tapping. |
| 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 semantic fluency in association with modulation of interhemispheric IFG connectivity by verb generation |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (patients improved only on semantic fluency) |
| 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 | PPI analyses were used to investigate whether change over time in modulation by verb generation of functional connectivity between L IFG and R IFG was associated with changes in semantic fluency scores, which are limited as a measure of language improvement. |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Verb generation vs finger tapping |
| 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? | Somewhat (patients improved only on semantic fluency) |
| 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 | PPI analyses were used to investigate change over time in modulation by verb generation of functional connectivity between R IFG and all other brain regions. Voxelwise p < .001, not corrected for multiple comparisons. |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | Reduced connectivity was observed in the L IFG pars opercularis, L anterior temporal lobe, L occipital lobe, L basal ganglia, R SMA and pre-SMA, R somato-motor cortex, R posterior MTG, and R cerebellum. It is noted that no regions survived FDR correction. |
