| Literature DB >> 27218465 |
Fiorenzo Moscatelli1,2, Giovanni Messina1,3, Anna Valenzano1, Vincenzo Monda3, Andrea Viggiano4, Antonietta Messina3, Annamaria Petito1, Antonio Ivano Triggiani1, Michela Anna Pia Ciliberti1, Marcellino Monda3, Laura Capranica2, Giuseppe Cibelli1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the involvement of the primary motor cortex (M1) in the coordination performance of karate athletes through transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27218465 PMCID: PMC4878742 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155998
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Motor Evoked Potential (MEP) Latency.
Means and SDs of MEP latency in the three experimental conditions for karate athletes and controls.
Fig 2Motor Evoked Potential (MEP) Amplitude.
Means and SDs of MEP amplitude in the three experimental conditions for karate athletes and controls.
Fig 3Interlimb coordination performance.
Means and SDs of the time of correct execution of homolateral hand and foot synchronized movements in relation to execution mode (i.e., in-phase and antiphase) and velocity of execution (i.e., 80, 120, and 180 bpm) of karate athletes and controls.
Fig 4Post hoc analysis for frequency of execution x coordination.
Means and SDs of the time of correct execution of homolateral hand and foot synchronized movements in relation to execution mode (i.e., in-phase and antiphase) and velocity of execution (i.e., 80, 120, and 180 bpm).
Pearson product-moment correlation.
| Parameters | Sample size | Pearson's r | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| rMT vs MEP latency | 26 | 0.5 | <0.01 |
| rMT vs IP 80 bpm | 26 | -0.37 | n.s. |
| rMT vs IP 120 bpm | 26 | -0.44 | <0.05 |
| rMT vs IP 180 bpm | 26 | -0.57 | <0.01 |
| rMT vs AP 80 bpm | 26 | -0.63 | <0.01 |
| rMT vs AP 120 bpm | 26 | -0.41 | <0.01 |
| rMT vs AP 180 bpm | 26 | -0.72 | <0.01 |
Correlation coefficients and p values for the relationship between rMT (%) and MEP latency (ms), and rMT (%) and Interlimb task.