The Semantic Fluency Test is used to assess verbal ability. It is a psychological test where participants produce as many words as possible in a given category for a specified time period. In the SFT participants were given 3 categories (i.e. "Animals", "Fruits") and asked to produce as many words in that category as they can in 60 seconds. Scoring of the test included the sum of the number of spontaneous words that were generated in each category. This measure does not have a theoretical maximum; however, the more words generated indicates higher verbal ability which can indicate changes related to aphasia.

The Semantic Fluency Test is used to assess verbal ability. It is a psychological test where participants produce as many words as possible in a given category for a specified time period. In the SFT participants were given 3 categories (i.e. "Animals", "Fruits") and asked to produce as many words in that category as they can in 60 seconds. Scoring of the test included the sum of the number of spontaneous words that were generated in each category. This measure does not have a theoretical maximum; however, the more words generated indicates higher verbal ability which can indicate changes related to aphasia.

The Controlled Word Association Test is also a verbal fluency test. In this test participants produce as many words as possible given a specific letter for a specified time period. In the COWAT participants were given 3 Letters (i.e. "C", "F", "L") and asked to produce as many words that begin with that letter (excluding proper nouns) as they can in 60 seconds. Scoring of the test included the sum of the number of spontaneous words that were generated in each category. This measure does not have a theoretical maximum; however, the more words generated indicates higher verbal ability which can indicate changes related to aphasia.

The Controlled Word Association Test is also a verbal fluency test. In this test participants produce as many words as possible given a specific letter for a specified time period. In the COWAT participants were given 3 Letters (i.e. "C", "F", "L") and asked to produce as many words that begin with that letter (excluding proper nouns) as they can in 60 seconds. Scoring of the test included the sum of the number of spontaneous words that were generated in each category. This measure does not have a theoretical maximum; however, the more words generated indicates higher verbal ability which can indicate changes related to aphasia.

The Controlled Word Association Test is also a verbal fluency test. In this test participants produce as many words as possible given a specific letter for a specified time period. In the COWAT participants were given 3 Letters (i.e. "C", "F", "L") and asked to produce as many words that begin with that letter (excluding proper nouns) as they can in 60 seconds. Scoring of the test included the sum of the number of spontaneous words that were generated in each category. This measure does not have a theoretical maximum; however, the more words generated indicates higher verbal ability which can indicate changes related to aphasia.

WAB assesses linguistic skills most frequently affected by aphasia, plus key nonlinguistic skills, and provides differential diagnosis information. Adaptable to various administration settings from hospital room to clinic, it provides a baseline level of performance to measure change over time.The scoring provides two main totals, in addition to the subscale scores. These are the Aphasia Quotient (AQ) score and Cortical Quotient (CQ) score. AQ can essentially be thought of as a measure of language ability, whilst CQ is a more general measure of intellectual ability and includes all the subscales. Administration of the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) yields a total score termed the Aphasia Quotient (AQ), which is said to reflect the severity of the spoken language deficit in aphasia. This score is a weighted composite of performance on 10 separate WAB subtests. Scores rate severity as follows: 0-25 is very severe, 26-50 is severe, 51-75 is moderate, and 76-above is mild.

WAB assesses linguistic skills most frequently affected by aphasia, plus key nonlinguistic skills, and provides differential diagnosis information. Adaptable to various administration settings from hospital room to clinic, it provides a baseline level of performance to measure change over time.The scoring provides two main totals, in addition to the subscale scores. These are the Aphasia Quotient (AQ) score and Cortical Quotient (CQ) score. AQ can essentially be thought of as a measure of language ability, whilst CQ is a more general measure of intellectual ability and includes all the subscales. Administration of the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) yields a total score termed the Aphasia Quotient (AQ), which is said to reflect the severity of the spoken language deficit in aphasia. This score is a weighted composite of performance on 10 separate WAB subtests. Scores rate severity as follows: 0-25 is very severe, 26-50 is severe, 51-75 is moderate, and 76-above is mild.

WAB assesses linguistic skills most frequently affected by aphasia, plus key nonlinguistic skills, and provides differential diagnosis information. Adaptable to various administration settings from hospital room to clinic, it provides a baseline level of performance to measure change over time.The scoring provides two main totals, in addition to the subscale scores. These are the Aphasia Quotient (AQ) score and Cortical Quotient (CQ) score. AQ can essentially be thought of as a measure of language ability, whilst CQ is a more general measure of intellectual ability and includes all the subscales. Administration of the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) yields a total score termed the Aphasia Quotient (AQ), which is said to reflect the severity of the spoken language deficit in aphasia. This score is a weighted composite of performance on 10 separate WAB subtests. Scores rate severity as follows: 0-25 is very severe, 26-50 is severe, 51-75 is moderate, and 76-above is mild.

Laterality index (LI) is a measure of language lateralization to a hemisphere - it ranges from "-1" (or -100%) indicating left-hemispheric lateralization to "1" (or 100%) indicating right-hemispheric lateralization. A change from the baseline visit to the post-treatment visit is a neuroimaging (fMRI) outcome measure in this study. Change in LI does not indicate improvement or worsening but rather shift in lateralization of the language function representation in the brain that may be correlated with change in linguistic testing (e.g., WAB).

Laterality index (LI) is a measure of language lateralization to a hemisphere - it ranges from "-1" (or -100%) indicating left-hemispheric lateralization to "1" (or 100%) indicating right-hemispheric lateralization. A change from the baseline visit to the post-treatment visit is a neuroimaging (fMRI) outcome measure in this study. Change in LI does not indicate improvement or worsening but rather shift in lateralization of the language function representation in the brain that may be correlated with change in linguistic testing (e.g., WAB).

Laterality index (LI) is a measure of language lateralization to a hemisphere - it ranges from "-1" (or -100%) indicating left-hemispheric lateralization to "1" (or 100%) indicating right-hemispheric lateralization. A change from the baseline visit to the post-treatment visit is a neuroimaging (fMRI) outcome measure in this study. Change in LI does not indicate improvement or worsening but rather shift in lateralization of the language function representation in the brain that may be correlated with change in linguistic testing (e.g., WAB).

Laterality index (LI) is a measure of language lateralization to a hemisphere - it ranges from "-1" (or -100%) indicating left-hemispheric lateralization to "1" (or 100%) indicating right-hemispheric lateralization. A change from the baseline visit to the post-treatment visit is a neuroimaging (fMRI) outcome measure in this study. Change in LI does not indicate improvement or worsening but rather shift in lateralization of the language function representation in the brain that may be correlated with change in linguistic testing (e.g., WAB).

Laterality index (LI) is a measure of language lateralization to a hemisphere - it ranges from "-1" (or -100%) indicating left-hemispheric lateralization to "1" (or 100%) indicating right-hemispheric lateralization. A change from the baseline visit to the post-treatment visit is a neuroimaging (fMRI) outcome measure in this study. Change in LI does not indicate improvement or worsening but rather shift in lateralization of the language function representation in the brain that may be correlated with change in linguistic testing (e.g., WAB).

Laterality index (LI) is a measure of language lateralization to a hemisphere - it ranges from "-1" (or -100%) indicating left-hemispheric lateralization to "1" (or 100%) indicating right-hemispheric lateralization. A change from the baseline visit to the post-treatment visit is a neuroimaging (fMRI) outcome measure in this study. Change in LI does not indicate improvement or worsening but rather shift in lateralization of the language function representation in the brain that may be correlated with change in linguistic testing (e.g., WAB).

Laterality index (LI) is a measure of language lateralization to a hemisphere - it ranges from "-1" (or -100%) indicating left-hemispheric lateralization to "1" (or 100%) indicating right-hemispheric lateralization. A change from the baseline visit to the post-treatment visit is a neuroimaging (fMRI) outcome measure in this study. Change in LI does not indicate improvement or worsening but rather shift in lateralization of the language function representation in the brain that may be correlated with change in linguistic testing (e.g., WAB).

Laterality index (LI) is a measure of language lateralization to a hemisphere - it ranges from "-1" (or -100%) indicating left-hemispheric lateralization to "1" (or 100%) indicating right-hemispheric lateralization. A change from the baseline visit to the post-treatment visit is a neuroimaging (fMRI) outcome measure in this study. Change in LI does not indicate improvement or worsening but rather shift in lateralization of the language function representation in the brain that may be correlated with change in linguistic testing (e.g., WAB).

2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS

Magstim SuperRapid: This design will allow systematic evaluation of the efficacy of nerTMS and its most optimal dose for language recovery.

3 weeks of Sham Treatment

Magstim SuperRapid: This design will allow systematic evaluation of the efficacy of nerTMS and its most optimal dose for language recovery.

Total of all reporting groups

1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS

Magstim SuperRapid: This design will allow systematic evaluation of the efficacy of nerTMS and its most optimal dose for language recovery.

2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS

Magstim SuperRapid: This design will allow systematic evaluation of the efficacy of nerTMS and its most optimal dose for language recovery.

3 weeks of Sham Treatment

Magstim SuperRapid: This design will allow systematic evaluation of the efficacy of nerTMS and its most optimal dose for language recovery.

60-item test of visual confrontation naming for aphasia. In the BNT, subjects are shown line drawings of common objects one at a time and asked to name them orally. Scoring counts the number of spontaneously produced correct responses, the number of cues given, and the number of responses after phonemic cuing and after semantic cuing. The scale for scoring is 0-60 with 0 being no spontaneous correct answers and 60 being all correct answers.

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

60-item test of visual confrontation naming for aphasia. In the BNT, subjects are shown line drawings of common objects one at a time and asked to name them orally. Scoring counts the number of spontaneously produced correct responses, the number of cues given, and the number of responses after phonemic cuing and after semantic cuing. The scale for scoring is 0-60 with 0 being no spontaneous correct answers and 60 being all correct answers.

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

The Semantic Fluency Test is used to assess verbal ability. It is a psychological test where participants produce as many words as possible in a given category for a specified time period. In the SFT participants were given 3 categories (i.e. "Animals", "Fruits") and asked to produce as many words in that category as they can in 60 seconds. Scoring of the test included the sum of the number of spontaneous words that were generated in each category. This measure does not have a theoretical maximum; however, the more words generated indicates higher verbal ability which can indicate changes related to aphasia.

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

The Semantic Fluency Test is used to assess verbal ability. It is a psychological test where participants produce as many words as possible in a given category for a specified time period. In the SFT participants were given 3 categories (i.e. "Animals", "Fruits") and asked to produce as many words in that category as they can in 60 seconds. Scoring of the test included the sum of the number of spontaneous words that were generated in each category. This measure does not have a theoretical maximum; however, the more words generated indicates higher verbal ability which can indicate changes related to aphasia.

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

The Semantic Fluency Test is used to assess verbal ability. It is a psychological test where participants produce as many words as possible in a given category for a specified time period. In the SFT participants were given 3 categories (i.e. "Animals", "Fruits") and asked to produce as many words in that category as they can in 60 seconds. Scoring of the test included the sum of the number of spontaneous words that were generated in each category. This measure does not have a theoretical maximum; however, the more words generated indicates higher verbal ability which can indicate changes related to aphasia.

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

The Controlled Word Association Test is also a verbal fluency test. In this test participants produce as many words as possible given a specific letter for a specified time period. In the COWAT participants were given 3 Letters (i.e. "C", "F", "L") and asked to produce as many words that begin with that letter (excluding proper nouns) as they can in 60 seconds. Scoring of the test included the sum of the number of spontaneous words that were generated in each category. This measure does not have a theoretical maximum; however, the more words generated indicates higher verbal ability which can indicate changes related to aphasia.

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

The Controlled Word Association Test is also a verbal fluency test. In this test participants produce as many words as possible given a specific letter for a specified time period. In the COWAT participants were given 3 Letters (i.e. "C", "F", "L") and asked to produce as many words that begin with that letter (excluding proper nouns) as they can in 60 seconds. Scoring of the test included the sum of the number of spontaneous words that were generated in each category. This measure does not have a theoretical maximum; however, the more words generated indicates higher verbal ability which can indicate changes related to aphasia.

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

The Controlled Word Association Test is also a verbal fluency test. In this test participants produce as many words as possible given a specific letter for a specified time period. In the COWAT participants were given 3 Letters (i.e. "C", "F", "L") and asked to produce as many words that begin with that letter (excluding proper nouns) as they can in 60 seconds. Scoring of the test included the sum of the number of spontaneous words that were generated in each category. This measure does not have a theoretical maximum; however, the more words generated indicates higher verbal ability which can indicate changes related to aphasia.

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

WAB assesses linguistic skills most frequently affected by aphasia, plus key nonlinguistic skills, and provides differential diagnosis information. Adaptable to various administration settings from hospital room to clinic, it provides a baseline level of performance to measure change over time.The scoring provides two main totals, in addition to the subscale scores. These are the Aphasia Quotient (AQ) score and Cortical Quotient (CQ) score. AQ can essentially be thought of as a measure of language ability, whilst CQ is a more general measure of intellectual ability and includes all the subscales. Administration of the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) yields a total score termed the Aphasia Quotient (AQ), which is said to reflect the severity of the spoken language deficit in aphasia. This score is a weighted composite of performance on 10 separate WAB subtests. Scores rate severity as follows: 0-25 is very severe, 26-50 is severe, 51-75 is moderate, and 76-above is mild.

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

WAB assesses linguistic skills most frequently affected by aphasia, plus key nonlinguistic skills, and provides differential diagnosis information. Adaptable to various administration settings from hospital room to clinic, it provides a baseline level of performance to measure change over time.The scoring provides two main totals, in addition to the subscale scores. These are the Aphasia Quotient (AQ) score and Cortical Quotient (CQ) score. AQ can essentially be thought of as a measure of language ability, whilst CQ is a more general measure of intellectual ability and includes all the subscales. Administration of the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) yields a total score termed the Aphasia Quotient (AQ), which is said to reflect the severity of the spoken language deficit in aphasia. This score is a weighted composite of performance on 10 separate WAB subtests. Scores rate severity as follows: 0-25 is very severe, 26-50 is severe, 51-75 is moderate, and 76-above is mild.

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

WAB assesses linguistic skills most frequently affected by aphasia, plus key nonlinguistic skills, and provides differential diagnosis information. Adaptable to various administration settings from hospital room to clinic, it provides a baseline level of performance to measure change over time.The scoring provides two main totals, in addition to the subscale scores. These are the Aphasia Quotient (AQ) score and Cortical Quotient (CQ) score. AQ can essentially be thought of as a measure of language ability, whilst CQ is a more general measure of intellectual ability and includes all the subscales. Administration of the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) yields a total score termed the Aphasia Quotient (AQ), which is said to reflect the severity of the spoken language deficit in aphasia. This score is a weighted composite of performance on 10 separate WAB subtests. Scores rate severity as follows: 0-25 is very severe, 26-50 is severe, 51-75 is moderate, and 76-above is mild.

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

Laterality index (LI) is a measure of language lateralization to a hemisphere - it ranges from "-1" (or -100%) indicating left-hemispheric lateralization to "1" (or 100%) indicating right-hemispheric lateralization. A change from the baseline visit to the post-treatment visit is a neuroimaging (fMRI) outcome measure in this study. Change in LI does not indicate improvement or worsening but rather shift in lateralization of the language function representation in the brain that may be correlated with change in linguistic testing (e.g., WAB).

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

Laterality index (LI) is a measure of language lateralization to a hemisphere - it ranges from "-1" (or -100%) indicating left-hemispheric lateralization to "1" (or 100%) indicating right-hemispheric lateralization. A change from the baseline visit to the post-treatment visit is a neuroimaging (fMRI) outcome measure in this study. Change in LI does not indicate improvement or worsening but rather shift in lateralization of the language function representation in the brain that may be correlated with change in linguistic testing (e.g., WAB).

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

Laterality index (LI) is a measure of language lateralization to a hemisphere - it ranges from "-1" (or -100%) indicating left-hemispheric lateralization to "1" (or 100%) indicating right-hemispheric lateralization. A change from the baseline visit to the post-treatment visit is a neuroimaging (fMRI) outcome measure in this study. Change in LI does not indicate improvement or worsening but rather shift in lateralization of the language function representation in the brain that may be correlated with change in linguistic testing (e.g., WAB).

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

Laterality index (LI) is a measure of language lateralization to a hemisphere - it ranges from "-1" (or -100%) indicating left-hemispheric lateralization to "1" (or 100%) indicating right-hemispheric lateralization. A change from the baseline visit to the post-treatment visit is a neuroimaging (fMRI) outcome measure in this study. Change in LI does not indicate improvement or worsening but rather shift in lateralization of the language function representation in the brain that may be correlated with change in linguistic testing (e.g., WAB).

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

Laterality index (LI) is a measure of language lateralization to a hemisphere - it ranges from "-1" (or -100%) indicating left-hemispheric lateralization to "1" (or 100%) indicating right-hemispheric lateralization. A change from the baseline visit to the post-treatment visit is a neuroimaging (fMRI) outcome measure in this study. Change in LI does not indicate improvement or worsening but rather shift in lateralization of the language function representation in the brain that may be correlated with change in linguistic testing (e.g., WAB).

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

Laterality index (LI) is a measure of language lateralization to a hemisphere - it ranges from "-1" (or -100%) indicating left-hemispheric lateralization to "1" (or 100%) indicating right-hemispheric lateralization. A change from the baseline visit to the post-treatment visit is a neuroimaging (fMRI) outcome measure in this study. Change in LI does not indicate improvement or worsening but rather shift in lateralization of the language function representation in the brain that may be correlated with change in linguistic testing (e.g., WAB).

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

Laterality index (LI) is a measure of language lateralization to a hemisphere - it ranges from "-1" (or -100%) indicating left-hemispheric lateralization to "1" (or 100%) indicating right-hemispheric lateralization. A change from the baseline visit to the post-treatment visit is a neuroimaging (fMRI) outcome measure in this study. Change in LI does not indicate improvement or worsening but rather shift in lateralization of the language function representation in the brain that may be correlated with change in linguistic testing (e.g., WAB).

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

Laterality index (LI) is a measure of language lateralization to a hemisphere - it ranges from "-1" (or -100%) indicating left-hemispheric lateralization to "1" (or 100%) indicating right-hemispheric lateralization. A change from the baseline visit to the post-treatment visit is a neuroimaging (fMRI) outcome measure in this study. Change in LI does not indicate improvement or worsening but rather shift in lateralization of the language function representation in the brain that may be correlated with change in linguistic testing (e.g., WAB).

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

Laterality index (LI) is a measure of language lateralization to a hemisphere - it ranges from "-1" (or -100%) indicating left-hemispheric lateralization to "1" (or 100%) indicating right-hemispheric lateralization. A change from the baseline visit to the post-treatment visit is a neuroimaging (fMRI) outcome measure in this study. Change in LI does not indicate improvement or worsening but rather shift in lateralization of the language function representation in the brain that may be correlated with change in linguistic testing (e.g., WAB).

1 participant from control group was unable to be analyzed due to loss of follow up.

1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS

Magstim SuperRapid: This design will allow systematic evaluation of the efficacy of nerTMS and its most optimal dose for language recovery.

2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS

Magstim SuperRapid: This design will allow systematic evaluation of the efficacy of nerTMS and its most optimal dose for language recovery.

3 weeks of Sham Treatment

Magstim SuperRapid: This design will allow systematic evaluation of the efficacy of nerTMS and its most optimal dose for language recovery.

paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment + 1 week of nerTMS group and BNT test was calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.54.

paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.63.

paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for 2 weeks of Sham Treatment + 1 week of nerTMS group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 1.31.

paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 4.35.

paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.37.

paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.70.

paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.25.

paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.60.

paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.07.

paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.43.

paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.09.

paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.84.

paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.68.

paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.67.

paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -3.10.

paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.14.