Skip to main content
Fig. 4 | Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

Fig. 4

From: Intracortical and intercortical networks in patients after stroke: a concurrent TMS-EEG study

Fig. 4

Analyses of the ERSP. (A) Differences in ERSP at the early stage (15–150 ms). Topographies in the first row show the differences between the patients’ ipsilesional and contralesional ERSP, and topographies in the second row show the differences in the ERSP derived from ipsilesional stimulation in the patients and M1 stimulation in the healthy controls. The asterisks (*) represent significant clusters found in cluster-based permutation tests. Spatial correlation was obtained by performing a Pearson product-moment correlation analysis for the above two sets of differences in the theta (r = 0. 89, P < 0.001), alpha (r = 0.51, P < 0.001), beta-1 (r = 0.54, P < 0.001) and beta-2 (r = 0.37, P = 0.004). (B) The network in a representative stroke patient. (C) Connectivities at the early stage. The values are the average values of 21 patients. (D) Comparison of the connectivities at the early stage. (E) Comparison of network measures at the early stage. (F) Correlations between the measures of network transitivity and the LMFP of N100 and measures of network efficiency and the LMFP of N100. Theta was the only frequency band in which significant differences in connectivity and network measures were found. Therefore, the correlation between network measures in the theta band and the LMFP of N100 was explored. Note: ERSP: event-related spectral perturbation; dwPLI: debiased weighted phase lag index; AUC: area under curve; LMFP: local mean field power

Back to article page