Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

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

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

Copyright © 2020 the American Physiological Society

Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY 4.0: © the American Physiological Society.

PMC Copyright notice

Fig. 5. — Comparison of the modulatory effects of caudal and rostral forelimb areas (CFA and RFA) with all interstimulus intervals (ISIs) combined. A: comparison of the incidence of modulatory effects for CFA-CFA, RFA-CFA, and RFA-RFA protocols with all the ISIs tested combined. We found significantly fewer facilitatory effects and more inhibitory effects for CFA-CFA protocols than for the other 2 types of protocols. In addition, RFA-CFA induced more facilitatory effects in comparison to RFA-RFA protocols. *P ≤ 0.017. B: comparison of the magnitude of modulatory effects from all 3 protocols with all the tested ISIs combined. We found that facilitatory effects of CFA-CFA protocols were significantly weaker than for other protocols. Inhibitory effects were significantly more powerful for CFA-CFA than RFA-RFA protocols. *P ≤ 0.05.