Skip to main content
. 2024 Apr 18;65(4):29. doi: 10.1167/iovs.65.4.29

Figure 6.

Figure 6.

(A) Plot of LIRNFL pre- and posttraining for participants who trained in their IF (paired t-test, 95% CI = −0.003 to 0.0123, t22 = 0.7322, P = 0.4718). (B) Plot of LIRNFL pre- and posttraining for participants who trained in their BF (paired t-test, 95% CI = −0.0036 to 0.0197, t19 = 1.446, P = 0.1645). (C) Comparison of unaffected and affected RNFL thicknesses, before and after IF training (unaffected pre- versus posttraining: paired t-test, 95% CI = −1.860 to 0.8163, P = 0.4274; affected pre- versus posttraining: paired t-test, 95% CI = −2.796 to 0.7962, P = 0.2606). (D) Comparison of unaffected and affected RNFL thicknesses, before and after BF training (unaffected pre- versus posttraining: paired t-test, 95% CI = −1.714 to 2.414, P = 0.7266; affected pre- versus posttraining: paired t-test, 95% CI = −2.862 to 0.3951, P = 0.1294). (E) Comparison of change in RNFL thickness from pre- to posttraining in IF- or BF-trained participants (unaffected versus affected in IF-trained subjects: paired t-test, 95% CI = −2.096 to 1.139, P = 0.546; unaffected versus affected in BF-trained subjects: paired t-test, 95% CI = −3.627 to 0.4601, P = 0.1213; unaffected versus unaffected of both training groups: unpaired t-test, 95% CI = −1.451 to 3.195, P = 0.4529; affected versus affected of both training groups: unpaired t-test, 95% CI = −2.614 to 2.148, P = 0.8441). A, affected; ns, not statistically significant; UA, unaffected.