19
C0¢0(¢al Spectral Perturbation during Upper Limb Diagonal Movements
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88337
For POz, none of the main effects were significant (all p > 0.57). The conditiontime window interaction was significant [F(2, 20) = 8.64; p < 0.01; η2 = 0.46].
Fisher LSD post hoc revealed that p1 in vertical was significantly different from
p3 in vertical (p < 0.01), p1 in diagonal (p < 0.05), and p2 in diagonal (p < 0.05);
p3 in diagonal was significantly different from p3 in vertical (p < 0.01) and p1 in
diagonal (p < 0.05) (see Figure 6C).
3.1.2.3 Alpha: single peaks
To refine our analysis, we extracted the activity in the two main peaks using
a time window of 50 ms around the maximum value (Peak1 = 240–340 ms;
Peak2 = 740–840 ms) and performed a 2 by 2 ANOVA with condition (vertical,
diagonal) and peaks (peak forward, peak comeback) as factors (see Figure 7).
Figure 5.
Alpha (8–12 Hz) time-frequency plot with time window segmentation of forward period (left side) in frontal
ROI (A), parietal ROI (C), and POz (E) and comeback period (right side) in frontal ROI (B), parietal ROI
(D), and POz (F).
Figure 6.
Alpha (8–12 Hz) analysis of time windows p1, p2, and p3 during comeback period in frontal ROI (a), parietal
ROI (B), and POz (panel C).
C0¢0(¢al Spectral Perturbation during Upper Limb Diagonal Movements
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88337
For POz, none of the main effects were significant (all p > 0.57). The conditiontime window interaction was significant [F(2, 20) = 8.64; p < 0.01; η2 = 0.46].
Fisher LSD post hoc revealed that p1 in vertical was significantly different from
p3 in vertical (p < 0.01), p1 in diagonal (p < 0.05), and p2 in diagonal (p < 0.05);
p3 in diagonal was significantly different from p3 in vertical (p < 0.01) and p1 in
diagonal (p < 0.05) (see Figure 6C).
3.1.2.3 Alpha: single peaks
To refine our analysis, we extracted the activity in the two main peaks using
a time window of 50 ms around the maximum value (Peak1 = 240–340 ms;
Peak2 = 740–840 ms) and performed a 2 by 2 ANOVA with condition (vertical,
diagonal) and peaks (peak forward, peak comeback) as factors (see Figure 7).
Figure 5.
Alpha (8–12 Hz) time-frequency plot with time window segmentation of forward period (left side) in frontal
ROI (A), parietal ROI (C), and POz (E) and comeback period (right side) in frontal ROI (B), parietal ROI
(D), and POz (F).
Figure 6.
Alpha (8–12 Hz) analysis of time windows p1, p2, and p3 during comeback period in frontal ROI (a), parietal
ROI (B), and POz (panel C).