| Language | US English |
| Inclusion criteria | — |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 29 (plus 1 excluded: contraindications to MRI) |
| Number of control participants | 14 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (26 of 30 patients were included in Fridriksson (2010)) |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (mean 59.2 years, range 33-81 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (males: 14; females: 16; not stated for controls) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 51.1 months, range 6-350 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity and type |
| Language evaluation | WAB |
| Aphasia severity | AQ mean 57.9 ± 25.8, range 17.2-95.2 |
| Aphasia type | 13 Broca's, 10 anomic, 3 conduction, 2 Wernicke's, 1 global, 1 transcortical motor |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Mixed etiologies |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Range 7.7-420.5 cc |
| Lesion location | L MCA |
| Participants notes | Demographic data includes excluded patient |
| 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/~4 weeks later; note that there were two separate sessions per time point, as well as another two sessions midway through treatment that are not analyzed in this paper |
| If longitudinal, was there any intervention between the time points? | Anomia treatment using a cueing hierarchy, 3 hours/day, 5 days/week, 2 weeks, with a 1-week gap between the two weeks |
| Is the scanner described? | Yes (Siemens Trio 3 Tesla) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | No (timing of stimuli within the silent periods is unclear) |
| Design type | Event-related |
| Total images acquired | 120 |
| 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 | sparse sampling; 26 patients were also scanned with arterial spin labelling |
| Language condition | Picture naming |
| Control condition | Viewing abstract pictures |
| Are the conditions matched for visual demands? | Yes |
| 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? | Somewhat |
| Does the contrast selectively activate plausible relevant language regions in the control group? | No |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | Somewhat |
| Control activation notes | Control data in Fridriksson et al. (2007); motor activations are prominent; there is some L frontal activation but little temporal activation in either hemisphere |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | Δ picture naming accuracy |
| 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? | Accuracy is covariate |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Other |
| How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | Change in perilesional non-language regions positively correlated with improvement in accuracy |
| First level contrast | Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | Δ (decrease in) semantic errors |
| 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 | Other |
| How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | Change in undamaged non-perilesional language regions negatively correlated with decrease in semantic errors |
| First level contrast | Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures |
| Analysis class | Longitudinal correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T2 vs T1 |
| Covariate | Δ (decrease in) phonological paraphasias |
| 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 | Other |
| How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | Change in perilesional language regions, and change in undamaged non-perilesional language regions, negatively correlated with decrease in phonological paraphasias |
| First level contrast | Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
| Covariate | Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1) picture naming accuracy |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model) |
| 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 | Other |
| How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
| Covariate | Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1, decrease in) semantic errors |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model) |
| 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 | Other |
| How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | Change in perilesional language regions correlated with decrease in phonological paraphasias |
| First level contrast | Picture naming vs viewing abstract pictures |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia T1 |
| Covariate | Subsequent Δ (T2 vs T1, decrease in) phonological paraphasias |
| Is the second level contrast valid in terms of the group(s), time point(s), and measures involved? | Somewhat (T1 behavioral measure should be included in model) |
| 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 | Other |
| How many ROIs are there? | 3 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) perilesional L hemisphere language regions; (2) perilesional L hemisphere non-language regions; (3) undamaged non-perilesional L hemisphere language regions |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Based on individual lesions and control activation for picture naming |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
