Skip to main content
. 2015 Jul 22;9:394. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00394

Table 3.

For each ROI, comparison of two neuroplastic patterns, according to change in AMAT score in response to rehabilitation.

Neuroplastic Pattern 1 (increased fMRI activation after treatment) Neuroplastic Pattern 2 (decreased or unchanged fMRI activation after treatment)
ROI Sample size Baseline AMAT (sec)mean (SD) Sample size Baseline AMAT (sec)mean (SD) Pattern comparison p value
Ipsilesional M1 14 538.0 (386) 9 235.1 (282) 0.028*
AS 8 549.5 (484) 15 350.1 (299) ns
S1 13 556.5 (395) 10 241.3 (274) 0.015
SII 11 485.4 (305) 12 359.0 (434) ns
LPM 11 576.1 (422) 12 275.9 (271) 0.023
SMA 11 547.9 (445) 12 301.7 (266) ns
Contralesional M1 11 612.3 (428) 12 242.8 (210) 0.023
AS 7 715.9 (433) 16 289.8 (270) 0.004*
S1 10 593.7 (441) 13 285.4 (261) 0.042
SII 9 609.0 (438) 14 297.6 (283) 0.028
LPM 10 595.8 (440) 13 283.8 (260) 0.049
SMA 11 564.9 (444) 12 286.2 (250) ns

Key: M1, primary motor; SMA, supplementary motor area; LPM, lateral premotor region; S1, primary somatosensory area; SII, secondary sensory region; AS, associative sensory; *significant p value after adjustment for multiple comparisons, according to Holm-Bonferonni method; ns, non-significant; ROI, region of interest.