In each group, rest MEPAPB and rest MEPFDI were compared using an independent samples t-test. The x, y and
z coordinates of the PMv location were compared, between groups, using a Mann–Whitney test. Statistical analyses of MEP amplitudes obtained in parts 1 and 2 were performed using a repeated anova. As the data were not Gaussian, our analyses used Conover’s free distribution method, a non-parametric anova based on ranks (Conover & Iman, 1982). Two factors were used: GROUP (two levels: FHD and controls) and PHASE (four levels: rest, T100, T50, Tpeak). Selleck Z-VAD-FMK If a main effect was observed at the 0.05 level, contrasts were calculated. If a significant interaction was found between the two factors, Mann–Whitney tests were performed to compare, between groups, MEP sizes for each phase. In part 2, the interaction between the PMv and M1 during the different phases of motor preparation was expressed as a ratio between conditioned and test MEPs (unconditioned), in percent – MEPcond/MEPtest*100. This ratio was used in the Conover Selleck Screening Library analysis. If a significant interaction was found between the two factors, a non-parametric one-way anova (Friedman test) was performed to attest for significant differences between phases, in each group. If a significant main effect was found,
Mann–Whitney tests were performed to compare MEP sizes for each phase between the two groups. Independently, and for each group, the effect of the premotor–motor interaction on MEPs was assessed using a non-parametric Wilcoxon Decitabine mouse test comparing test MEPs with conditioned MEPs, for each phase. This analysis was performed to assess whether premotor stimulation had an inhibitory or facilitatory influence on the MEPs, in each group and for each phase. In order to define whether patients with musician cramp and writer cramp displayed the same results, we performed a sub-group analysis. First, Wilcoxon tests were used in each group
to detect any significant effect of PMv stimulation on the test MEP amplitude, for each phase. Then, in order to determine whether those two sub-groups behaved differently, a Conover analysis was performed on the PMv–M1 interaction results. Our sub-groups were made of six patients with musician cramp and 12 patients with writer cramp. In order to balance the power of our test, we compared the six patients with musician cramp with six patients with writer cramp who were age- and gender-matched to the patients. Lastly, and in order to test the relationship between SI and PMv–M1 interaction, we performed a non-parametric Spearman correlation analysis between the amount of SI and the PMv–M1 interactions at T1, T2 and T3, in our two populations. Statistical analyses were performed using pasw Statistics 18.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). All of the data are displayed in Tables 2 and 3. The RTs did not differ between groups (P = 0.535). RMTAPB (Table 2) was not significantly different (P = 0.