Table II.
ECD strengths (n Axm) for the two components (M20 and M30) following each of the four stimulated districts†
| M20 | M30 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Med. n. | I | III | V | Med. n. | I | III | V | s_asy I | s_asy III | s_asy V | |
| Patients CTS hand | 12 ± 5 | 5 ± 2 | 5 ± 2 | 8 ± 3 | 26 ± 10 | 14 ± 6 | 11 ± 4 | 14 ± 5 | 0.2 ± 0.6 | −0.1 ± 0.7 | 0.62 ± 1.5a |
| Patients healthy hand | 12 ± 4 | 6 ± 3 | 5 ± 3 | 7 ± 2 | 33 ± 12 | 12 ± 4 | 13 ± 6 | 10 ± 6 | P = 0.17 | P > 0.5 | P = 0.049 |
| Control | 15 ± 5 | 6 ± 3 | 6 ± 4 | 6 ± 5 | 33 ± 15 | 16 ± 9 | 12 ± 6 | 11 ± 4 | 0.03 ± 0.6 | 0.09 ± 0.7 | 0.14 ± 0.6 |
Values are mean ± S.D. across subjects.
†
ECDs strengths are separately described for CTS and healthy hands. In the last three columns the interhemispheric asymmetries are reported for the three fingers (s_asy = log(s_CTS/s_healthy)).
a
Significant increase of digit 5 strength in the CTS with respect to the healthy hand representations, as compared with values in controls.