Fig. 3.

Contrasting ‘responders’ (significant result in Table 1 S1+S2; plotted in green) and ‘non-responders’ (no significant result in Table 1 S1+S2; plotted in blue): A $\mu$-power from the left M1 (logarithm, but not z-scored) in responders vs. non-responders. B $\mu$-power from the right M1. We observe that responders have significantly higher $\mu$-power. C Distribution of the fourth root of the MEP-amplitude during the experiment (across all stimulation trials not excluded due to pre-innervation; not z-scored!). Non-responders have a narrower distribution of Responses (fitting their flatter I/O-curves). D Individual fits of the MEP-I/O-curve (x: stimulation intensity in $\text{\%}$MSO, y: raw MEP amplitude (peak to peak)), colored by responder/non-responder. There is a tendency for the non-responders to have flatter I/O-curves somewhat shifted towards higher intensities. E Population level fits of the I/O-curves for responders/non-responders. The non-responders show a flatter I/O-curve on the population level. F Stimulation intensities (SI) used for each participant in each session. Although the non-responders may show flatter I/O-curves, they were stimulated at similar intensities as the responders (no significant difference).