Skip to main content
. 2012 Jun 20;108(5):1537–1544. doi: 10.1152/jn.01112.2011

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6.

A: variance accounted for (VAF) for by 4 synergies in the 3 coupling conditions using the 2 methods. With the exception of the synergies in the 0 coupling condition using the detrended EMG, the VAF of all other conditions were >80%. In all cases, the VAF using the full EMG method was significantly higher than the VAF from the detrended EMG method (*P < 0.05). B: principal angles between synergies for the 3 coupling conditions. P, N, and Z indicate the positive, negative, and 0 coupling conditions. For the full EMG, differences in angles are small, indicating that the analysis was not very sensitive to the different values of coupling. However, the results show a clear difference between coupling conditions when using the detrended EMG. For the detrended EMG, the comparisons involving the 0 coupling condition (P-Z and N-Z) were not computed because the VAF in this condition was close to 50% (i.e., essentially the synergies in these conditions are fitting noise). Error bars indicate 1 SD. *Statistically >0 (P < 0.05).