Skip to main content
. 2020 Mar 4;123(4):1355–1368. doi: 10.1152/jn.00591.2019

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Comparison of output latencies from caudal and rostral forelimb areas (CFA and RFA). A: mean peak amplitude (±SE) of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) in the 3 types of protocols (CFA-CFA, RFA-CFA, and RFA-RFA). MEPs from CFA, regardless if they were collected in the CFA-CFA or RFA-CFA protocols, had similar amplitudes. They were however significantly greater than MEPs from RFA. B: mean threshold stimulation intensity (±SE) necessary to evoke responses from CFA and RFA. Threshold current intensity values were significantly greater in RFA than in CFA. C: MEP onset latency resulting from test stimulus delivered alone (T-only) stimulation in CFA (n = 109) of all 3 muscles [wrist extensor (WE): white; wrist flexor (WF): gray; elbow flexor (EF)]. The histogram shows the count of MEPs with different onset latency values (bins of 0.2 ms). Onset latencies of MEPs induced by CFA ranged from 7.8 ms to 13.7 ms, with a median value of 11.2 ms (black arrow). No clear differences of onset latencies were observed between muscles. D: onset latencies of MEPs resulting from T-only stimulation in RFA (n = 34). Onset latencies of MEPs induced by RFA ranged from 8.0 ms to 14.7 ms, with a median value of 11.8 ms (black arrow). Again, no clear differences for the 3 muscles tested were observed. Inset: average (±SE) of onset latencies of MEPs from CFA was shorter than from RFA. *P < 0.05.