Figure 5.

The reduction of PAC_stable predicts the improvement of freezing severity induced by DBS. (A) Box plots comparing PAC_stand, PAC_stable and PAC_unstable between no-stimulation (NS) and stimulation (STIM) conditions. (B) Box plots comparing freezing time proportion, freezing frequency and duration per freezing between NS and STIM conditions. Same conventions as in Fig. 2B. **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05, signed-rank test. (C) Regression plots showing the correlation between the percentage change of PAC_stand and the percentage change of freezing time proportion (top), freezing frequency (middle) and duration per freezing (bottom). (D) Regression plots showing the correlation between the percentage change of PAC_stable and the percentage change of freezing time proportion (top), freezing frequency (middle) and freezing duration (bottom). (E) Regression plots showing the correlation between the percentage change of PAC_unstable and the percentage change of freezing time proportion (top), freezing frequency (middle) and duration per freezing (bottom). Note that each patient has two data points resulting in 14 × 2 PAC values (n = 28), as the reduction of PAC was calculated in two stimulation conditions (i.e. HFS and LFS). Statistical dependence within subjects was accounted for using linear mixed effects models. Significant correlations after Bonferroni correction are marked in red. %RD = percentage reduction; %IMP = percentage improvement.