Table 5.
Correlations between functional connectivity measures and bimanual coordination performance
| IN ISO | OUT ISO | IN N‐ISO | OUT N‐ISO | In‐phase | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LPMd vs RPMv | r = 0.31 | r = 0.29 | r = 0.27 | r = 0.28 | r = 0.32 |
| P < 0.0001 | P < 0.001 | P < 0.001 | P < 0.001 | P < 0.0001 | |
| Q < 0.001 | Q < 0.001 | Q < 0.001 | Q < 0.001 | Q < 0.05 | |
| MCC vs LPMd | r = 0.22 | r = 0.19 | r = 0.21 | ||
| P = 0.01 | P = 0.03 | P = 0.01 | |||
| Q = 0.07 | Q = 0.24 | Q = 0.12 | |||
| MCC vs LPMv | r = 0.24 | r = 0.18 | r = 0.20 | ||
| P = 0.00 | P = 0.04 | P = 0.03 | |||
| Q = 0.07 | Q = 0.47 | Q = 0.15 | |||
| MCC vs RM1 | r = 0.22 | r = 0.19 | r = 0.21 | ||
| P = 0.01 | P = 0.03 | P = 0.02 | |||
| Q = 0.07 | Q = 0.24 | Q = 0.12 | |||
| SMA vs MCC | r = 0.21 | r = 0.18 | |||
| P = 0.02 | P = 0.04 | ||||
| Q = 0.07 | Q = 0.15 | ||||
| SMA vs LPMv | r = 0.22 | r = 0.18 | |||
| P = 0.01 | P = 0.04 | ||||
| Q = 0.07 | Q = 0.15 | ||||
| MCC vs LM1 | r = 0.18 | ||||
| P = 0.05 | |||||
| Q = 0.16 |
Significant correlations between pairs of ROIs showing age‐related increases in functional connectivity and poorer bimanual coordination performance, before (P < 0.05) and after correcting for multiple comparisons with FDR (Q < 0.05). IN ISO, inwards isofrequency; OUT ISO, outwards isofrequency; IN N‐ISO, inwards, non‐isofrequency; OUT N‐ISO, outwards non‐isofrequency; r, Pearson correlation coefficient; R, right; L, left.