Table 3.
Similarity of synergies across load levels in the load protocol (n = 6)
| Comparison conditions (load A vs. load B) | Nsyn | Similarity index | VAF (%) | Muscle VAF (%) | VAFsh (%) | Muscle VAFsh (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10% MLF vs. 25% MLF | ||||||
| load A | 3.7 ± 0.5 | 0.861 ± 0.155 | 98.4 ± 0.6 | 94.8 ± 5.1 | 94.3 ± 4.9 | 86.2 ± 25.1 |
| load B | 3.8 ± 0.4 | 97.5 ± 0.9 | 94.3 ± 10.9 | 88.2 ± 8.1 | 85.6 ± 22.0 | |
| 10% MLF vs. 40% MLF | ||||||
| load A | 3.7 ± 0.5 | 0.903 ± 0.153 | 98.4 ± 0.7 | 95.2 ± 4.8 | 95.1 ± 5.1 | 90.3 ± 19.1 |
| load B | 3.7 ± 0.5 | 96.5 ± 1.1 | 93.2 ± 13.4 | 93.1 ± 5.9 | 92.4 ± 8.8 | |
| 10% MLF vs. 60% MLF | ||||||
| load A | 3.7 ± 0.5 | 0.847 ± 0.170 | 98.3 ± 0.7 | 95.0 ± 5.7 | 91.7 ± 7.7 | 83.9 ± 36.7 |
| load B | 3.5 ± 0.5 | 96.3 ± 0.9 | 91.0 ± 17.5 | 89.3 ± 8.6 | 88.9 ± 15.9 | |
| 25% MLF vs. 40% MLF | ||||||
| load A | 3.8 ± 0.4 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 98.0 ± 0.8 | 96.9 ± 2.0 | 97.5 ± 0.8 | 96.9 ± 2.4 |
| load B | 3.7 ± 0.5 | 97.3 ± 1.0 | 96.7 ± 2.4 | 97.0 ± 1.0 | 96.4 ± 2.6 | |
| 25% MLF vs. 60% MLF | ||||||
| load A | 3.8 ± 0.4 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 97.9 ± 0.7 | 96.8 ± 2.1 | 97.0 ± 1.4 | 96.0 ± 4.3 |
| load B | 3.5 ± 0.5 | 96.8 ± 1.1 | 96.0 ± 3.5 | 96.4 ± 1.1 | 95.7 ± 3.1 | |
| 40% MLF vs. 60% MLF | ||||||
| load A | 3.7 ± 0.5 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 97.3 ± 0.9 | 96.5 ± 2.3 | 96.8 ± 1.2 | 95.9 ± 3.1 |
| load B | 3.5 ± 0.5 | 96.9 ± 1.0 | 96.0 ± 2.9 | 96.7 ± 1.1 | 96.1 ± 2.9 |
All numbers are represented as mean ± SD. Two out of 8 subjects' data were omitted in the analysis, because data at 1 load level were not collected [for subject S2, 40% of maximum lateral force (MLF) and for subject S7, 10% of MLF]. Nsyn, number of synergies extracted from each load condition; VAF, variance-accounted-for, obtained by fitting both shared and dataset-specific synergies; muscle VAF, the VAF for each muscle; VAFsh, VAF acquired by fitting shared synergies only; and muscle VAFsh, the VAFsh for each muscle.