Skip to main content
. 2017 Dec 27;596(4):691–702. doi: 10.1113/JP274660

Table 3.

Secondary analysis using LCModel for the SM voxel, along with associated data quality metrics

Neurometabolite Pre 1 Pre 2 Post Ex 1 (24 min) Post Ex 2 (38 min) Post Ex 3 (46 min) rmANOVA Contrast 1 (Pre 1 vs. Pre 2) Contrast 2 (Post vs. Pre)
LC‐Model: MEGA‐PRESS difference spectrum
GABA+:NAA 0.34 (0.05) 0.34 (0.06) 0.38 (0.05) 0.35 (0.06) 0.36 (0.05)

  • F4,36 = 2.77, P = 0.042

  • η2p = 0.24

F 1,9 = 0.06,
P = 0.81
η2 p = 0.01		 F 1,9 = 3.33,
P = 0.10
η2 p = 0.27
Glx:NAA 0.99 (0.10) 1.01 (0.09) 1.02 (0.11) 1.01 (0.12) 0.99 (0.13)

  • F 4,36 = 0.42, P = 0.64

  • η2 p = 0.05

 – –
Line width (ppm) 0.037 (0.016) 0.037 (0.013) 0.034 (0.004) 0.034 (0.004) 0.033 (0.00)

  • F 4,36 = 0.83, P = 0.41

  • η2 p = 0.09

  • GGε = 0.32

 – –
SNR 26.7 (5.98) 26.8 (6.29) 25.9 (3.41) 26.0 (3.40) 25.9 (3.75) F 4,36 = 0.21,
P = 0.76
η2 p = 0.02 		– –
LC‐Model: ‘Off’ resonance PRESS spectrum
NAA:Cr 1.90 (0.12) 1.90 (0.13) 1.86 (0.14) 1.93 (0.28) 1.90 (0.16) F 4,36 = 0.73,
P = 0.046
η2 p = 0.08
GGε = 0.35 		– –
Glx:Cr 0.74 (0.11) 0.74 (0.11) 0.76 (0.10) 0.75 (0.11) 0.76 (0.13)

  • F 4,36 = 0.39, P = 0.81

  • η2 p = 0.04

 – –
Ins:Cr 0.91 (0.13) 0.91 (0.11) 0.89 (0.14) 0.92 (0.12) 0.91 (0.15)

  • F 4,36 = 0.53, P = 0.72

  • η2 p = 0.05

 – –
Cho:Cr 0.25 (0.04) 0.25 (0.05) 0.24 (0.04) 0.24 (0.04) 0.25 (0.41)

  • F 4,36 = 0.83, P = 0.43

  • η2 p = 0.08

  • GGε = 0.41

 – –
Line width (ppm) 0.037 (0.012) 0.036 (0.011) 0.033 (0.003) 0.034 (0.003) 0.035 (0.004)

  • F 4,36 = 0.67, P = 0.48

  • η2 p = 0.07

  • GGε = 0.34

 – –
SNR 34.4 (5.42) 35.3 (5.40) 34.2 (2.49) 33.2 (5.27) 34.5 (2.95)

  • F 4,36 = 0.43, P = 0.61

  • η2 p = 0.05

  • GGε = 0.38

 – –

Significant results are highlighted in bold. Planned comparisons were only carried out if a main effect was present in the rmANOVA. Data are reported as group mean (SD).