Skip to main content
. 2010 Nov 17;21(7):1602–1612. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhq225

Table 3.

Results for TMS experiment 3 (HD)

Stimulation Site MNI coordinates, x, y, z in [mm], (±SD) TpPath25, [ms], (P values) MaxDev, [mm], (P values) ReachTime, [ms], (P values) EndAcc, [mm], (P values)
SPLgroup −36, −49, 57 1.9 ± 7.4 0.2 ± 0.3 5.0 ± 10.3 0.3 ± 0.5
IPSHDgroup −39, −45, 50 15.2 ± 6.3, (<0.05) 1.2 ± 0.4 21.2 ± 9.1 0.1 ± 0.4
SMGgroup −45, −40, 45 26.8 ± 5.6, (<0.001) 0.5 ± 0.6 33.2 ± 5.6, (<0.01) 0.1 ± 0.3
SMGHDindiv −48.2, −34.2, 38.5, (±8.3 6.3 7.0) 16.3 ± 10.8, (<0.05) −0.2 ± 0.4 31.3 ± 12.3, (<0.01) 0.5 ± 0.7
IPSHDright 45, −39, 52 1.0 ± 10.0 0.2 ± 0.7 11.4 ± 8.8 0.6 ± 0.6
Reach −33, −56, 55 1.2 ± 6.5 −0.2 ± 0.5 13.6 ± 8.5 0.7 ± 0.3

Note: The MNI coordinates upon which the TMS stimulation sites were planned are given and for TpPath25, MaxDev, ReachTime, and EndAcc, the difference ± SE between trials with versus without TMS is given for each TMS stimulation site. Statistically significant differences are marked bold. For ReachTime, the interaction TMS × stimulation site did not reach significance. Newman–Keuls rather than Fisher least significant difference was therefore used for multiple comparisons correction in this case.