| Language | UK English |
| Inclusion criteria | Comprehension deficit per CAT and TROG (1 patient did not meet this criterion); anterolateral superior temporal cortex spared |
| Number of individuals with aphasia | 16 (plus 8 excluded: lesions involved L anterolateral superior temporal cortex) |
| Number of control participants | 11 |
| Were any of the participants included in any previous studies? | Yes (reanalysis of subset of dataset from Crinion et al. (2006)) |
| Is age reported for patients and controls, and matched? | No (mean 65.8 ± 2.0 SEM years; controls were younger) |
| Is sex reported for patients and controls, and matched? | Yes (males: 11; females: 5) |
| 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 (mean 28.8 ± 9.2 months SEM; minimum time post onset not reported, but some patients in Crinion et al. (2006) were subacute) |
| To what extent is the nature of aphasia characterized? | Not at all |
| Language evaluation | CAT, TROG |
| Aphasia severity | Not stated |
| Aphasia type | Not stated |
| First stroke only? | Yes |
| Stroke type | Ischemic only |
| To what extent is the lesion distribution characterized? | Lesion overlay |
| Lesion extent | Patients with positive anterior temporal interconnectivity: mean 93.3 ± 24.0 cc; patients with negative anterior temporal interconnectivity: mean 96.1 ± 27.6 cc |
| Lesion location | L not including anterolateral superior temporal cortex; maximal overlap in posterior superior temporal cortex |
| 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 (CTI-Siemens ECAT EXACT HR++/966 (10 patients and all controls) or GE Advance (6 patients)) |
| Is the timing of stimulus presentation and image acquisition clearly described and appropriate? | Yes |
| Design type | PET |
| Total images acquired | 12-16 |
| 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 | two different scanners used for patients, but not for controls |
| Language condition | Listening to narrative speech |
| Control condition | Listening to reversed speech |
| 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? | 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? | Somewhat |
| 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 | 11 participants; L-lateralized posterior temporal, bilateral anterior temporal, no frontal |
| Contrast notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| 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? | 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 | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | Somewhat circular because ROIs were defined only in regions where controls showed significant connectivity (even though ROIs were anatomical) |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | L IFG pars triangularis almost reached significance (p = .053) for more activation in patients |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Auditory sentence comprehension |
| 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 | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | ↑ L anterior temporal |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Written sentence comprehension |
| 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 | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Auditory single word comprehension |
| 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 | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | L anterior temporal p = .08 |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Auditory syntactic comprehension |
| 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 | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | L anterior temporal p = .09 |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Connectivity between L and R ATL |
| 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 | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 2 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) R anterior superior temporal cortex |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Time post onset |
| 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 | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | L anterior superior temporal cortex |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Lesion volume |
| 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 | Region of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 1 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | L anterior superior temporal cortex |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | One only |
| Statistical details | — |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with positive anterior temporal interconnectivity (n = 8) 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? | 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 | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | Somewhat circular because ROIs were defined only in regions where controls showed significant connectivity (even though ROIs were anatomical); excluded 3 patients with L IFG damage |
| Findings | ↑ L IFG pars triangularis |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional aphasia vs control |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with negative anterior temporal interconnectivity (n = 8) 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? | 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 | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | Somewhat circular because ROIs were defined only in regions where controls showed significant connectivity (even though ROIs were anatomical); excluded 1 patient with L IFG damage |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional between two groups with aphasia |
| Group(s) | Aphasia with positive anterior temporal interconnectivity (n = 8) vs with negative anterior temporal interconnectivity (n = 8) |
| 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 | Regions of interest (ROI) |
| ROI type | Anatomical |
| How many ROIs are there? | 6 |
| What are the ROI(s)? | (1) L anterior superior temporal cortex; (2) L basal temporal language area; (3) L IFG pars triangularis; (4-6) homotopic counterparts |
| How are the ROI(s) defined? | ROIs were defined anatomically in regions that were functionally connected with L anterior superior temporal cortex in controls (1-4) or homotopic to these (5-6) |
| Correction for multiple comparisons | No correction |
| Statistical details | Excluded 4 patients with L IFG damage |
| Findings | ↑ L IFG pars triangularis |
| Findings notes | — |
| First level contrast | Listening to narrative speech vs listening to reversed speech |
| Analysis class | Cross-sectional correlation with language or other measure |
| Group(s) | Aphasia |
| Covariate | Lesion status of each voxel |
| 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 | Complex |
| Statistical details | VLSM with FDR correction was used to identify any regions in which damage was predictive of L anterior temporal activation. |
| Findings | None |
| Findings notes | — |
