| Language | UK English |
| Inclusion criteria | Lesion in vicinity of L STG; no extensive frontal damage; no inferior temporal damage; able to perform tasks |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 9 |
| Number of control participants | 18 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (additional analysis of same dataset as Sharp et al. (2004)) |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (median 58 years, range 39-72 years) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 8; females: 1) |
| Is handedness reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (right: 9; left: 0) |
| Is time post stroke onset reported and appropriate to the study design? | Yes (mean 45 months, range 14-145 months) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Severity only |
| Language evaluation | Subtests from CAT, subtests from PALPA, Action for dysphasic adults, TROG, PPT |
| Aphasia severity | Mild |
| Aphasia type | Not stated |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Not stated |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Not stated |
| Lesion location | Lesion in vicinity of L STG; no extensive frontal damage; no inferior temporal damage |
| 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 (Siemens HR++ 966) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | PET |
| Total images acquired | 16 |
| 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 | — |
| Language condition | Semantic decision (clear in patients; average of clear and noise vocoded in controls) |
| Control condition | Syllable count decision (clear in patients; average of clear and noise vocoded in controls) |
| 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? | No, different |
| Is reaction time matched between the language and control tasks for all relevant groups? | No, different |
| Behavioral data notes | Significant differences per Sharp et al. (2004) |
| 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? | Yes |
| Control activation notes | Not stated exactly what contrast was used in controls |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Semantic decision (clear in patients; average of clear and noise vocoded in controls) vs syllable count decision (clear in patients; average of clear and noise vocoded in controls) |
| 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? | No, but attempt made |
| Is reaction time matched across the second level contrast? | Appear similar |
| Behavioral data notes | Accuracy and RT were not significantly different for the semantic task; statistics are not reported for the syllable counting task, but the data provided suggest that accuracy was probably not matched, while RT probably was |
| Type of analysis | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Other |
| How many ROIs are there? | 12 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | Functional connectivity between pairs of spared nodes of the L hemisphere semantic network and R hemisphere homotopic regions: (1) L SFG-L AG; (2) L SFG-L IFG; (3) L SFG-L IT; (4) L AG-L IFG; (5) L AG-L IT; (6) L IFG-L IT; (7-12) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | Partial correlations between nodes |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No direct comparison |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | Other |
| Findings notes | Patients showed greater connectivity between L SFG and L AG than controls while performing the semantic task; this was not the case for the syllable counting task, however connectivity during performance of the two tasks was not compared directly |
