Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2020 Sep;45(3):211–220. doi: 10.1007/s10484-020-09464-1

Fig. 4. (a) Stride-to-stride coefficient of variation (CV) of peak targeted AGRF in able-bodied (N=7, filled symbols) and paretic legs of post-stroke (N=9, open symbols) participants, respectively.

Fig. 4

The 2-way repeated measures ANOVA found a significant main effect of group (p<0.001, # symbol), but no significant main effect of biofeedback mode. (b, c) The feedback-induced change in targeted or paretic leg CV of peak AGRF (with respect to the control trial without biofeedback) during the audio, visual, and audiovisual biofeedback trials for (b) able-bodied individuals and (c) post-stroke individuals. Feedback-induced changes were calculated as the difference in CV of peak AGRF between the biofeedback (audio, visual, audiovisual) and control trials. Open circles represent individual subject data. Able-bodied individuals demonstrated a significantly larger feedback-induced change in targeted CV of peak AGRF during the audio compared to visual biofeedback trial (p=0.021, * symbol), as well as a trend towards a larger feedback-induced change during the audio compared to audiovisual biofeedback trial (p=0.067, ‡ symbol). Post-stroke individuals did not demonstrate a significant difference in feedback-induced change in paretic leg CV of peak AGRF among the three biofeedback trials. Error bars indicate standard error