Comparison of speaking monosyllables to the baseline visual condition [ SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.05 (FDR) ]

Figure 1: Comparison of speaking monosyllables to the baseline visual condition
SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.05 (FDR)
Comparison of speaking monosyllables to the baseline visual condition. Color indicates the effect size from the mixed effects analysis using the SPM toolbox corrected for multiple comparisons using an FDR of 0.05. On the inflated cortical surfaces the dark gray corresponds to sulci and the light gray corresponds to the gyri, while black represents non-cortical regions. The left panel shows coronal slices covering the extent of activation in the cerebellum while the bottom panel shows coronal slices covering the extent of activation in the basal ganglia and thalamus. y-values refer to planes in MNI-space. The color scale is common to all renderings.

Comparison of speaking monosyllables to the baseline visual condition [ ROI analysis; P < 0.05 (FDR) ]

Figure 2: Comparison of speaking monosyllables to the baseline visual condition
ROI analysis; P < 0.05 (FDR)
Comparison of speaking monosyllables to the baseline visual condition. Color indicates the effect size from the mixed effects ROI analysis corrected for multiple comparisons using an FDR of 0.05. Areas in red are significantly more active in the monosyllable condition and those in blue are more active in the baseline visual condition. Abbreviations: Frontal operculum (FO), anterior central operculum (aCO), posterior central operculum (pCO), anterior insula (aIns), posterior insula (pIns), anterior supplementary motor area (aSMA), posterior supplementary motor area (pSMA), Heschl's gyrus (H), planum temporale (PT), posterior superior temporal gyrus (pSTg), posterior dorsal superior temporal sulcus (pdSTs), anterior medial cerebellum (amCB), superior posterior lateral cerebellum (splCB), superior posterior medial cerebellum (spmCB), ventral motor cortex (vMC), dorsal motor cortex (dMC), ventral somatosensory cortex (vSSC), putamen, pallidum, thalamus, ventral premotor cortex (vPMC), inferior temporal occipital (ITO), inferior frontal gyrus pars opercularis (iFo) and pars triangularis (iFt), planum polare (PP), anterior superior temporal gyrus (aSTg).

Comparison of bisyllabic utterances to monosyllabic utterances [ SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.05 (FDR) ]

Figure 3: Comparison of bisyllabic utterances to monosyllabic utterances
SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.05 (FDR)
Comparison of bisyllabic utterances to monosyllabic utterances, standard analysis. The regions showing increased activity bilaterally for bisyllables are SMA, the superior cerebellum, superior parietal cortex, extra-striate cortex and superior temporal gyrus. Left lateralized activity was found in the inferior frontal gyrus and motor cortex. The data shown here reflects the effect size from SPM of the mixed effects analysis corrected for multiple comparisons using an FDR of 0.05. Coronal slices of the cerebellum covering the extent of activation are shown in the left panel. The bottom panel shows activation in the basal ganglia covering the extent of activation.

Comparison of bisyllabic utterances to monosyllabic utterances [ ROI analysis; P < 0.05 (FDR) ]

Figure 4: Comparison of bisyllabic utterances to monosyllabic utterances
ROI analysis; P < 0.05 (FDR)
Comparison of bisyllabic utterances to monosyllabic utterances, ROI analysis. Color indicates the effect size from the mixed effects ROI analysis corrected for multiple comparisons using an FDR of 0.05. Areas in red are significantly more active in the bisyllable condition and those in blue are more active in the monosyllable condition.

Comparison of vowel utterances to baseline [ SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.05 (FDR) ]

Figure 5: Comparison of vowel utterances to baseline
SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.05 (FDR)
Comparison of vowel only utterances to baseline. The data shown here reflects the effect size from SPM of the mixed effects analysis corrected for multiple comparisons using an FDR of 0.05 (uncorrected p < 0.0017). Coronal slices of the cerebellum covering the extent of activation are shown in the left panel. The bottom panel shows activation in the basal ganglia covering the extent of activation.

Comparison of CV utterances to baseline [ SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.05 (FDR) ]

Figure 6: Comparison of CV utterances to baseline
SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.05 (FDR)
Comparison of CV utterances to baseline. The data shown here reflects the effect size from SPM of the mixed effects analysis corrected for multiple comparisons using an FDR of 0.05 (uncorrected p < 0.0063). Coronal slices of the cerebellum covering the extent of activation are shown in the left panel. The bottom panel shows activation in the basal ganglia covering the extent of activation.

Comparison of CVCV utterances to baseline [ SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.05 (FDR) ]

Figure 7: Comparison of CVCV utterances to baseline
SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.05 (FDR)
Comparison of CVCV utterances to baseline. The data shown here reflects the effect size from SPM of the mixed effects analysis corrected for multiple comparisons using an FDR of 0.05 (uncorrected p < 0.0073). Coronal slices of the cerebellum covering the extent of activation are shown in the left panel. The bottom panel shows activation in the basal ganglia covering the extent of activation.

Comparison of rV utterances to baseline [ SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.05 (FDR) ]

Figure 8: Comparison of rV utterances to baseline
SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.05 (FDR)
Comparison of rV utterances to baseline. The data shown here reflects the effect size from SPM of the mixed effects analysis corrected for multiple comparisons using an FDR of 0.05 (uncorrected p < 0.0052). Coronal slices of the cerebellum covering the extent of activation are shown in the left panel. The bottom panel shows activation in the basal ganglia covering the extent of activation.

Subject 2. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline [ SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR) ]

Figure 9: Subject 2. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline
SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR)
Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline for Subject 2. The data shown here reflects the effect size from SPM of the mixed effects analysis corrected for multiple comparisons using an FDR of 0.01. The yellow-red colormap shows positive effect sizes while the blue colormap shows negative effect sizes

Subject 3. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline [ SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR) ]

Figure 10: Subject 3. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline
SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR)
Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline for Subject 3. The data shown here reflects the effect size from SPM of the mixed effects analysis corrected for multiple comparisons using an FDR of 0.01. The yellow-red colormap shows positive effect sizes while the blue colormap shows negative effect sizes

Subject 4. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline [ SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR) ]

Figure 11: Subject 4. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline
SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR)
Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline for Subject 4. The data shown here reflects the effect size from SPM of the mixed effects analysis corrected for multiple comparisons using an FDR of 0.01. The yellow-red colormap shows positive effect sizes while the blue colormap shows negative effect sizes

Subject 5. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline [ SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR) ]

Figure 12: Subject 5. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline
SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR)
Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline for Subject 5. The data shown here reflects the effect size from SPM of the mixed effects analysis corrected for multiple comparisons using an FDR of 0.01. The yellow-red colormap shows positive effect sizes while the blue colormap shows negative effect sizes

Subject 6. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline [ SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.05 (uncorrected) ]

Figure 13: Subject 6. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline
SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.05 (uncorrected)
Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline for Subject 6. The data shown here reflects the effect size from SPM of the mixed effects analysis (uncorrected p < 0.05). The yellow-red colormap shows positive effect sizes while the blue colormap shows negative effect sizes

Subject 7. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline [ SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR) ]

Figure 14: Subject 7. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline
SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR)
Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline for Subject 7. The data shown here reflects the effect size from SPM of the mixed effects analysis corrected for multiple comparisons using an FDR of 0.01. The yellow-red colormap shows positive effect sizes while the blue colormap shows negative effect sizes

Subject 8. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline [ SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR) ]

Figure 15: Subject 8. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline
SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR)
Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline for Subject 8. The data shown here reflects the effect size from SPM of the mixed effects analysis corrected for multiple comparisons using an FDR of 0.01. The yellow-red colormap shows positive effect sizes while the blue colormap shows negative effect sizes

Subject 9. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline [ SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR) ]

Figure 16: Subject 9. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline
SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR)
Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline for Subject 9. The data shown here reflects the effect size from SPM of the mixed effects analysis corrected for multiple comparisons using an FDR of 0.01. The yellow-red colormap shows positive effect sizes while the blue colormap shows negative effect sizes

Subject 10. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline [ SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR) ]

Figure 17: Subject 10. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline
SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR)
Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline for Subject 10. The data shown here reflects the effect size from SPM of the mixed effects analysis corrected for multiple comparisons using an FDR of 0.01. The yellow-red colormap shows positive effect sizes while the blue colormap shows negative effect sizes

Subject 11. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline [ SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR) ]

Figure 18: Subject 11. Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline
SPM voxel based mixed effects analysis; P < 0.01 (FDR)
Comparison of monosyllabic utterances to baseline for Subject 2. The data shown here reflects the effect size from SPM of the mixed effects analysis corrected for multiple comparisons using an FDR of 0.01. The yellow-red colormap shows positive effect sizes while the blue colormap shows negative effect sizes