Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Neural Eng. 2014 Oct 13;11(6):066001. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/11/6/066001

Figure 9.

Figure 9

Comparison of residual spread induced by different stimulation paradigms. PAES-18 induced significantly more residual suppression and less residual facilitation than ES-only and PAES-8 (two-tailed, unequal variance, ranked t-test with Bonferroni correction; p<0.05 *). PAES-18 also induced significantly more suppression than facilitation (p<<0.001 **). This figure plots the median and distribution of suppression and facilitation spread values. The mean ± SD for each paradigm are as follows: ES-only - suppression spread = 12.9 ± 8.9% and facilitation spread = 9.9 ± 6.9%; PAES-18 - suppression spread = 18.2 ± 9.7% and facilitation spread = 6.1 ± 6.5%; PAES-8 - suppression spread = 12.5 ± 12.1% and facilitation spread = 9.6 ± 5.9%. The total number of ICC sites analyzed and the resulting number of sites suppressed and facilitated are as follows: ES-only 324 suppressed and 219 facilitated out of 2377 ICC sites; PAES-18 - 456 suppressed and 146 facilitated out of 2428 ICC sites; PAES-8 - 288 suppressed and 222 facilitated out of 2313 ICC sites.