02, P = 0.02). The factor Time was itself statistically significant (F2,28 = 16.47, P < 0.0001), whereas the factor Group was not (F1,28 = 1.33, P = 0.25). Post-hoc comparison of the two groups showed a significant difference only in the last condition, i.e. after iHFS for 25 min (Bonferroni
post-test, t = 2.83, P < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons). The rTMS applied at 5 Hz for 20 min to the primary SI produced an increase in the averaged PPR. In the group that received only rTMS (Group 2), the PPR increased from a baseline level of 0.41 ± 0.04 to 0.53 ± 0.04, which represented a 29% increase from baseline. After a wait period without further intervention, there was a further increase to 0.67 ± 0.06, a 63% increase from baseline (RM-anova, F2,14 = 12.63, P = 0.0001). see more A post-hoc test between the second and third assessment showed that the increase was statistically significant (Bonferroni post-test, t = 2.7, P < 0.05). For the group that received rTMS + iHFS (Group 1), there was an increase in the PPR from a baseline of 0.42 ± 0.04 to 0.59 ± 0.098 (40% increase). In contrast to Group 2, rTMS followed by a second intervention of iHFS resulted in a decrease of the PPR to 0.55 ± 0.05 (RM-anova, F2,14 = 4.49, P = 0.02). A post-hoc test between the second and third assessment showed
no statistically significant difference (Bonferroni post-test, buy OSI-906 t = 0.62, P > 0.05). Application of iHFS alone (Group 3) increased the PPR from a baseline value of 0.54 ± 0.03 to 0.63 ± 0.03 (17% increase, paired t-test, t = 5.7, P < 0.0001) (Fig. 4B). Analysis of the amplitude of the first (P1) and second (P2) peaks revealed that, in all cases, the changes were dependent on the amplitude Nintedanib (BIBF 1120) of P2. In Group 1, one-way RM-anova revealed no change in the amplitude of P1 (RM-anova, F2,14 = 1.01,
P = 0.38), whereas there was a significant increase in the amplitude of P2 (RM-anova, F2,14 = 5.3, P = 0.01). In Group 2, a similar pattern was found (RM-anova, F2,14 = 0.58, P = 0.56 for P1; F2,14 = 7.98, P = 0.002 for P2). The same was found for Group 3 (paired t-test, t = 0.17, P = 0.86 for P1 and t = 2.54, P = 0.02 for P2) (Fig. 5). In order to discover if the effects of rTMS and iHFS depend on the baseline state of excitability, we performed a Pearson correlation analysis between the baseline PPR and the percentage change after rTMS (∆ rTMS – baseline), and between baseline and the percentage change recorded at the last measurement (∆ last – baseline) for each group separately. After rTMS, there was no correlation between the percentage change in the PPR compared with baseline for either Group 1 (r = −0.2115, P = 0.3996) or Group 2 (r = −0.3417, P = 0.1652). In contrast, after the wait period (∆ last – baseline), there was a significant negative correlation for Group 2 (r = −0.748, P = 0.0001) between baseline ratios and those obtained in the last assessment.