Skip to main content
. 2018 Sep 12;120(6):2745–2760. doi: 10.1152/jn.00362.2018

Table 2.

TA MEP values in participants with no known neurological conditions

F Value C1–6 C7–12 C13–18 C19–24
Conditioned MEP, %baseline
    Conditioning group F(4,16) = 5.2 118.3 ± 9.4 120.6 ± 14.3 127.8 ± 11.4* 143.7 ± 12.0*
    Control group F(4,24) = 0.4 99.0 ± 4.8 105.5 ± 5.3 97.1 ± 6.3 102.0 ± 8.6
Control MEP, %baseline
    Conditioning group F(4,16) = 3.6 110.4 ± 2.6 119.1 ± 7.5 126.3 ± 14.7* 132.1 ± 6.5*
    Control group F(4,24) = 0.9 103.9 ± 4.9 111.5 ± 7.3 97.8 ± 8.4 108.8 ± 11.5
Within-session change, %baseline
    Conditioning group F(4,16) = 0.8 7.9 ± 10.1 1.5 ± 10.9 1.5 ± 11.1 11.7 ± 9.7
    Control group F(4,24) = 1.2 −5.0 ± 3.3 −6.1 ± 4.3 −0.7 ± 3.9 −6.9 ± 4.0

Values are group means ± SE expressed as percentages of baseline tibialis anterior (TA) motor evoked potential (MEP) for the conditioning group of individuals in whom up-conditioning was successful (n = 5) and for the control group (n = 7). C1–6, C7–12, C13–18, and C19–24 are conditioning (or control) sessions 1–6, 7–12, 13–18, and 19–24, respectively.

*

P < 0.05, significant difference from the 6 baseline sessions (Dunnett’s post hoc after one-way repeated-measures ANOVA).