Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Apr 25.
Published in final edited form as: Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2021 Mar 11;35(4):367–378. doi: 10.1177/1545968321999049

Fig 2. Representative data.

Fig 2

Data from one participant showing average motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in the paretic (top) and non-paretic (bottom) limb during three experimental conditions: dynamic bilateral ankle movement (left), dynamic unilateral ankle movement (middle), and isometric unilateral ankle contraction (right). Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was applied to the ipsilateral (black) and contralateral (light gray) hemisphere for each target limb during each condition. In this representative data, ipsilateral responses (relative to contralateral responses) were larger in the paretic than the non-paretic limb. Within the paretic limb, ipsilateral responses (relative to contralateral responses) were larger during dynamic conditions than during the isometric condition. iSPs were longer in the paretic than the non-paretic limb and during dynamic conditions compared to the isometric condition.