In Object Naming, the participant views a line-drawn item and covertly generates the item name. In Verbal Responsive Naming, the participant reads a brief description of an object, and covertly generates the item name. In Auditory Responsive Naming, the participant hears a brief description of an object, and covertly generates the item name. The maps of the three tasks can be interpreted separately, but are intended to be combined in conjunction analysis as in Benjamin et al. (2017). The standard versions of each task as validated in Benjamin et al. 2017, are included, as are alternative versions that are adjusted to improve signal and are being further developed (below).

Task design. The standard version was validated in Benjamin et al. 2017, though different black and white line-drawn task stimuli are included here for copyright reasons. The alternative version has been modified to increase signal and decrease noise. Specifically, the number of trials is greater and block duration longer, and task instructions are standardized. A control that is more closely matched than rest is used, to improve language lateralization (e.g., Binder, 2011; though note the control remains passive). The text cue presented at the start of each block in the standard version is removed to avoid blurring of the fMRI signal. Detailed standardized instructions are given prior to imaging and again immediately prior to image acquisition. Accuracy is estimated after imaging (outside the scanner) as unreasonably low accuracy may influence interpretation of the maps. In the Alternative version, translations are included. Further detail is included in the following tables.

Analysis and interpretation. Given the importance of localizing activation, a matched-bandwidth T2 image was used originally to allow activation to be superimposed on a structural reference with equivalent distortions and no image realignment was used. The Alternative version proceeds from the assumption that the boundaries of activation will be imprecise, regardless of method, and that the imager must emphasize this to those who are consuming the imaging results. With this assumption, it is also acceptable to realign EPI images through the imaging runs (another step many consider essential; see discussion in Benjamin et al. 2017). It is then possible to optimize image registration by including a reference T2 image, for instance by coregistering the T2 to the MPRage and then the EPI sequences to the coregistered T2. Another option is to also use a field map during analysis to remove some of the EPI image distortion.

Translated versions. A key goal of this battery is to provide freely available standard translated versions of these tasks. As there is not yet a readily available multilingual battery, versions of these three tasks are provided in languages other than English for others' use and adaptation. The English language versions of these have been validated in Benjamin et al. 2017 as discussed above, and while it is logical that they would lateralize language effectively in other languages it is important to note that as with most existing versions, the task versions here have not yet been rigorously validated in languages other than English. It is currently possible to run the object, auditory and verbal responsive naming tasks in English, Farsi, Greek, Hindi, Korean, Polish, Portuguese (European), and Spanish (South American; European) versions. We are happy to add other languages if required (see appendices).