Skip to main content
. 2015 Feb 1;106:15–20. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.11.032

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

a) Average performance ratings for each group per day. There is a significant effect of day (F(3.933,129.795) = 142.2, p = 0.00001) but no significant interaction effect (F(3.933,129.795) = 0.999, p > 0.1) or significant differences between groups (F(1,33) = 0.005, p > 0.1). b) Motor resting-state network (left). Default mode network (right). c) Motor resting-state network strength. The low intensity group shows significant increases between Baseline and Post 1 (**t(15) = 3.283, p = 0.005) and a trend for increases between Baseline and Post 2 (*t(15) = 2.347, p = 0.033). There is significant decrease in motor RSN strength between Baseline and Post 1 for the high intensity group (**t(19) = 2.787, p = 0.012). There was no difference in motor RSN strength between Baseline and Post 1 for the control group (t(19) = 0.243, p > 0.1). d) Default mode network strength. Training had no significant effect on the default mode RSN. Bars represent standard error. *uncorrected, **survives Bonferroni correction, p < 0.016.