Skip to main content
. 2011 May 24;589(Pt 14):3533–3544. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2011.207191

Table 1.

Control potentials and long-interval inhibition during submaximal maintained-EMG contractions prior to fatigue

Mmax Conditioned potentials Unconditioned potentials Cond/Uncond ratio




Amplitude (mV) Area (mV s) Amplitude (mV) Area (mV s) Amplitude (mV) Area (mV s) Amplitude (%) Area (%)
Weak
 MEP 23.6 ± 5.5 0.123 ± 0.026  4.3 ± 1.4 0.019 ± 0.007 13.9 ± 5.0* 0.086 ± 0.029* 32.1 ± 11.3 22.4 ± 6.8
 CMEP 24.3 ± 5.2 0.129 ± 0.027  4.2 ± 1.3 0.017 ± 0.006  7.8 ± 4.0 0.035 ± 0.020 68.4 ± 48.4 67.5 ± 57.1
P = 0.379 P = 0.093 P = 0.643 P = 0.227 P = 0.007 P = 0.001 P = 0.071 P = 0.051
Strong
 MEP 24.3 ± 6.3 0.129 ± 0.030 11.2 ± 2.8 0.063 ± 0.020 15.8 ± 4.8 0.101 ± 0.029* 71.9 ± 8.5 62.8 ± 14.8
 CMEP 24.6 ± 5.6 0.128 ± 0.031 11.4 ± 2.7 0.049 ± 0.015 15.2 ± 6.4 0.080 ± 0.040 81.1 ± 22.0 69.9 ± 26.2
P = 0.465 P = 0.182 P = 0.843 P = 0.061 P = 0.309 P = 0.014 P = 0.252 P = 0.586

Data are mean values (± SD) of the four protocols. Long-interval inhibition was calculated for each subject as the ratio (expressed as a percentage) between the mean area of conditioned responses and the mean area of unconditioned responses. Asterisks (*) denote a difference between the weak MEP and CMEP or the strong MEP and CMEP (P values < 0.05 are indicated by bold text).