00, P = 097); MOTOR TRAINING × FEEDBACK

(F8,136 = 092,

00, P = 0.97); MOTOR TRAINING × FEEDBACK

(F8,136 = 0.92, P = 0.50)]. Given there were no significant interaction terms in the lower two panels of Fig. 3, we can conclude that training had the same effect on EMG mirroring and background EMG in both the feedback-provided and feedback-deprived sessions. Pre-task measurements of RMT50 μV (in the M1TASK) and of 1 mV-MEP (in the M1MIRROR), respectively, were 37.1 ± 4.4 Proteases inhibitor and 44.4 ± 4.8% of MSO for the feedback-deprived motor task session, and 39.1 ± 1.9 and 48.4 ± 6.6% of MSO for the session with feedback. They did not differ between sessions and were unchanged after motor practice (all P > 0.05). As shown in Fig. 4, however, the input–output properties of M1TASK increased after practice, indicating

an increase in excitability of the trained hemisphere. This was confirmed by a repeated-measures anova, which showed a significant effect of MOTOR TRAINING (F1,18 = 9.91, P = 0.005) and CS INTENSITY (F4,72 = 20.05, P < 0.0001), but no significant effect of FEEDBACK (F1,18 = 0.06, P = 0.80) or any significant interaction terms between the main factors [CS INTENSITY × MOTOR TRAINING learn more (F4,72 = 0.67, P = 0.61); CS INTENSITY × FEEDBACK (F4,72 = 0.22, P = 0.92); MOTOR TRAINING × FEEDBACK (F1,18 = 0.57, P = 0.46); CS INTENSITY × MOTOR TRAINING × FEEDBACK (F4,72 = 0.38, P = 0.82)]. We conclude that motor training increased excitability of M1TASK, independent of the type of feedback (Fig. 4). Values of s-IHI and l-IHI obtained at different CS intensities are shown

in Fig. 5. Repeated-measures anova revealed a significant main effect of CS INTENSITY (F4,72 = 19.44, P < 0.0001), confirming that the mean magnitude of s-IHI and l-IHI increased with increasing CS intensity. Conversely, the main factors FEEDBACK, MOTOR TRAINING and ISI were not significant (F1,18 = 2.72, P = 0.11; F1,18 = 1.46, P = 0.24; and F1,18 = 0.75, P = 0.39, respectively), and there were no significant interactions between the main factors [FEEDBACK × MOTOR TRAINING (F1,18 = 0.08, P = 0.78); FEEDBACK × ISI (F1,18 = 0.32, P = 0.58); MOTOR TRAINING × ISI (F1,18 = 0.52, P = 0.48); FEEDBACK × CS INTENSITY Carnitine dehydrogenase (F4,72 = 1.20, P = 0.31); ISI × CS INTENSITY (F4,72 = 1.39, P = 0.24); MOTOR TRAINING × CS INTENSITY (F4,72 = 1.13, P = 0.35); FEEDBACK × ISI × MOTOR TRAINING (F1,18 = 0.03, P = 0.85); FEEDBACK × ISI × CS INTENSITY (F4,72 = 1.07, P = 0.37); FEEDBACK × MOTOR TRAINING × CS INTENSITY (F4,72 = 0.07, P = 0.99); ISI × MOTOR TRAINING × CS INTENSITY (F4,72 = 0.70, P = 0.59); FEEDBACK × ISI × MOTOR TRAINING × CS INTENSITY (F4,72 = 0.08, P = 0.98)]. Thus, neither feedback-deprived nor feedback-provided motor training had any effect on s-IHI and l-IHI (Fig. 5). We combined data from both feedback-deprived and feedback-provided motor training sessions as they had behaved the same way in all preceding anovas. As outlined in the Introduction, we had two hypotheses to test.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>