Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 15;8:800. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00800

TABLE 2.

Effect of the conditioning biofeedback on the amplitude of the EMG envelopes.

Subject # TA (mean (SD) VL (mean (SD) GM (mean (SD)
1 1.74 ± 1.03* 0.10 ± 0.31 0.22 ± 0.31*
2 4.94 ± 3.06* 0.16 ± 0.34* 0.82 ± 0.61*
3 0.57 ± 0.29* 1.81 ± 0.66* 2.15 ± 0.83*
4 1.26 ± 0.76* 0.87 ± 0.33* 5.12 ± 1.51*
5 4.10 ± 1.04* 1.10 ± 0.50* 3.86 ± 0.95*
6 3.78 ± 1.18* 0.98 ± 0.47* 2.86 ± 1.21*
7 3.49 ± 1.40* 0.30 ± 0.25* 0.14 ± 0.80
8 2.29 ± 0.97* 1.37 ± 0.52* 2.10 ± 0.91*
9 3.48 ± 1.03* 1.38 ± 0.67* 3.81 ± 2.39*
10 2.95 ± 0.75* 0.64 ± 0.70* 2.89 ± 1.54*
Mean ± SD across all subjects 2.86 ± 1.15 0.87 ± 0.47 2.40 ± 1.10

Values indicate the difference in peak amplitude between the POST and PRE trial, normalized with respect to the PRE trial mean amplitude (e.g., a value of 1 corresponds to a change in amplitude of 100%, meaning that the amplitude of POST peaks populations was two times the mean amplitude of the PRE trial). Statistically significant values are indicated with an asterisk (p-value < 0.05 in the t-test). Only values from target muscles are reported.