| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | Broca's aphasia |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 10 (plus 3 excluded: 1 due to a metal implant; 2 for severely non-fluent speech) |
| Number of control participants | 20 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | No |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 56.9 ± 9.2 years, range 45-75 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (males: 9; females: 4; control sex not matched) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 12; left: 1) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 63.8 ± 64.3 months, range 10-261 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
| Language evaluation | WAB, BNT, AoS from ABA |
| Aphasia severity | AQ mean 48.5 ± 20.6, range 20.9-73.5 |
| Aphasia type | Broca's |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | L MCA |
| Participants notes | Demographic data includes excluded patients |
| 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? | No (Siemens 3 Tesla; model not stated) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No* (moderate limitation) (it appears that each of the three conditions was presented in a separate run) |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | 180? |
| 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? | No (not described clearly) |
| Is intersubject normalization adequately described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Imaging notes | sparse sampling |
| Language condition | Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) |
| Control condition | Listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences |
| 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? | Unknown, not reported |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Behavioral data outside the scanner suggest not matched, but in-scanner behavioral data not reported |
| 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? | No |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
| Control activation notes | Control and patient data are combined; this contrast activates bilateral anterior insula and posterior MTG, slightly more extensive on the L |
| Contrast notes | — |
| Language condition | Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) |
| Control condition | Rest |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
| 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? | 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 | Rest condition implied but not explicitly described |
| Language condition | Listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences |
| Control condition | Rest |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
| 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? | 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 | Rest condition implied but not explicitly described |
| Language condition | Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouth |
| Control condition | Rest |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | No |
| Are the conditions matched for auditory demands? | No |
| 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, 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? | 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 | Rest condition implied but not explicitly described |
| First level contrast | Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 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? | N/A, no timeable task |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Unclear or not stated |
| Software | FSL (FEAT 5.98) |
| Voxelwise p | — |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | Thresholding not stated |
| Findings | ↑ L angular gyrus
↓ L anterior temporal |
| Findings notes | Based on coordinates in Table 2 |
| First level contrast | Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs rest |
| 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? | Yes |
| Is accuracy matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | N/A, no timeable task |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Voxelwise |
| Search volume | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Unclear or not stated |
| Software | FSL (FEAT 5.98) |
| Voxelwise p | — |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | Thresholding not stated |
| Findings | ↑ L SMA/medial prefrontal
↑ L anterior cingulate
↑ R precuneus
↑ R occipital
↑ R hippocampus/MTL
↓ L supramarginal gyrus |
| Findings notes | Some labels changed based on coordinates |
| First level contrast | Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences and viewing a mouth vs rest |
| 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? | 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 | Whole brain |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | Unclear or not stated |
| Software | FSL (FEAT 5.98) |
| Voxelwise p | — |
| Cluster extent | — |
| Statistical details | Thresholding not stated |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to/watching audiovisual sentences, while producing the same sentences in unison (speech entrainment) vs listening to reversed sentences and viewing a mouth speaking, while producing unrelated sentences |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 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? | N/A, no timeable task |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior insula/IFG pars orbitalis; (2) R anterior insula/IFG pars orbitalis; (3) Broca's area; (4) L MTG; (5) L BA 37; (6) R BA 37 |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Regions activated in both groups considered together |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | There were no interactions of group by condition; two regions showed main effects of group but this is not pertinent to the contrast |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
