| Language | Japanese |
| Inclusion criteria | Able to repeat single words |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 16 |
| 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? | Yes (mean 56.6 ± 11.8 years, range 38-75 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 12; females: 4) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 16; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | No* (moderate limitation) (mean 15.1 ± 16.7 months, range 1.1-50.3 months; a mix of subacute and chronic participants; 8 of each) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Comprehensive battery |
| Language evaluation | WAB |
| Aphasia severity | AQ mean 74.3 ± 12.2, range 53.8-92.4 |
| Aphasia type | 6 anomic, 4 atypical, 4 mild Broca's, 1 mild Wernicke's, 1 transcortical sensory; alternately: 10 fluent, 6 non-fluent |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Ischemic only |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Extent and location |
| Lesion extent | Mean 33.9 ± 26.3 cc, range 8.1-113.2 cc |
| Lesion location | L perisylvian |
| Participants notes | — |
| 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 (Headtome IV tomograph) |
| 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? | No (91 mm field of view; coverage limitations not stated) |
| 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 | Word 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? | 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? | Somewhat |
| Are activations lateralized in the control data? | No |
| Control activation notes | Bilateral auditory and motor activations are prominent, only slightly L-lateralized |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Word 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? | Unknown, not reported |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | Some of the patients made a few errors, so as a group they may have been less accurate than controls |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Spheres around control peaks |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | The rCBF increase in R PIF was also significant at p < 0.005 for nonfluent patients with Fisher's protected least-significant difference |
| Findings | ↑ R IFG
↑ R posterior STG/STS/MTG |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia fluent (n = 10) vs non-fluent (n = 6) |
| 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? | Unknown, not reported |
| Behavioral data notes | — |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Spheres around control peaks |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↓ R IFG |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Spontaneous speech (WAB) |
| 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 | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Spheres around control peaks |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | No correction for multiple comparisons across WAB subscores |
| Findings | ↑ L IFG |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Comprehension (WAB) |
| 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 | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Spheres around control peaks |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | This non-significant finding is implied but not stated explicitly |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Repetition (WAB) |
| 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 | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Spheres around control peaks |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | This non-significant finding is implied but not stated explicitly |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Word repetition vs rest |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Naming (WAB) |
| 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 | Functional |
| How many ROIs are there? | 7 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L posterior inferior frontal; (2) R posterior inferior frontal; (3) L posterior superior temporal; (4) R posterior superior temporal; (5) L rolandic; (6) R rolandic; (7) SMA |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Spheres around control peaks |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | This non-significant finding is implied but not stated explicitly |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
