Fig. 3.

Quantification for recorded ESR components and intramuscular EMG recordings when comparing ‘on-disc’ stimulation to ‘off-disc’ stimulation. Motor thresholds for ‘on-disc’ stimulation of subjects (n=4) were verified within intramuscular EMG recordings and as follows: S1, 2.0 mA; S2, 6.0 mA; S3, 2.0 mA; S4, 2.9 mA). A Data from respective subject S1 shows signal strength for collected ESRs changed from ‘on-disc’ to ‘off-disc’ stimulation, shown as (1) ECAP (2.0 mA: -68.2 ± 0.61%; 3.0 mA: -85.6 ± 0.30%; 4.0 mA: -89.8 ± 0.16%; 5.0 mA: -90.5 ± 0.15%; 6.0 mA: -94.5 ± 0.07%) and (2) EMG components (2.0 mA: -17.6 ± 1.86%; 3.0 mA: -90.6 ± 0.31%; 4.0 mA: -96.0 ± .09%; 5.0 mA: -94.7 ± 0.13%; 6.0 mA: -94.1 ± 0.08%), and (3) intramuscular EMG (IM) recordings (2.0 mA: -76.5 ± 0.81%; 3.0 mA: -99.5 ± 0.01%; 4.0 mA: -99.8 ± 0.01%; 5.0 mA: -99.4 ± 0.03%; 6.0 mA: -89.3 ± 0.24) from intercostal muscles were significantly weaker across various stimulation amplitudes. B. Changes in signal strength from ‘on-disc’ to ‘off-disc’ stimulation were observed at motor thresholds for all subjects (n=4) under evoked motor thresholds within recorded ESRs, including (1) ECAP (S1: -68.2 ± 0.61%; S2: -74.5 ± 0.1%; S3: -74.1 ± 0.1%; S4: -71.0 ± 0.43%) and (2) EMG components (S1: -17.6 ± 1.86%; S2: -2.40 ± 5.07%; S3: 12.1 ± 2.46%; S4: -11.4 ± 1.40%) and (3) intramuscular EMG (IM) recordings (S1: -76.5 ± 0.81%; S2: -35.1 ± 1.76%; S3: 2.90 ± 0.91%; S4: -50.4 ± 2.23%). Additional plots for subject comparisons containing RMS values are provided in Supplementary Fig. 8