Table 2 Descriptive (mean (95% CI)) and comparative statistics of each ROI pair in each cohort for the TD vs. CST wiring group comparison.
TD cohort (n = 60) | Contralateral CST (n = 9) | Bilateral CST (n = 6) | Ipsilateral CST (n = 9) | Wilk’s Lambda (p) | F (p) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
group*connection | main effect group | |||||
Intra functional connectivity non-dominant hemisphere | 0.95 (0.63) | 0.93 (0.43) | ||||
M1-PMd | 0.33 (0.05) | 0.35 (0.15) | 0.35 (0.26) | 0.24 (0.08) | ||
M1-PMv | 0.03 (0.03) | 0.12 (0.11) | 0.03 (0.04) | 0.09 (0.10) | ||
M1-S1 | 0.69 (0.06) | 0.77 (0.20) | 0.70 (0.16) | 0.68 (0.17) | ||
Intra functional connectivity dominant hemisphere | 0.79 (0.005)* | |||||
M1-PMd | 0.30 (0.06) | 0.56 (0.21) | 0.42 (0.22) | 0.23 (0.10) | 4.16 (0.009)†,§ | |
M1-PMv | 0.03 (0.03) | 0.09 (0.13) | 0.18 (0.13) | 0.15 (0.11) | 3.59 (0.02) | |
M1-S1 | 0.87 (0.07) | 0.77 (0.17) | 0.99 (0.43) | 0.77 (0.19) | 0.88 (0.45) | |
Inter functional connectivity Les → NonLes | 0.89 (0.37) | 0.47 (0.70) | ||||
M1-PMd | 0.19 (0.05) | 0.27 (0.13) | 0.28 (0.19) | 0.24 (0.16) | ||
M1-PMv | 0.05 (0.03) | 0.06 (0.09) | 0.10 (0.07) | 0.10 (0.13) | ||
M1-S1 | 0.40 (0.06) | 0.28 (0.11) | 0.34 (0.11) | 0.39 (0.12) | ||
M1-SMA | 0.32 (0.06) | 0.21 (0.13) | 0.29 (0.16) | 0.35 (0.18) | ||
Inter functional connectivity NonLes → Les | 0.87 (0.29) | 0.03 (0.99) | ||||
M1-PMd | 0.22 (0.04) | 0.28 (0.14) | 0.28 (0.15) | 0.22 (0.13) | ||
M1-PMv | 0.01 (0.03) | 0.07 (0.18) | 0.03 (0.04) | 0.14 (0.14) | ||
M1-S1 | 0.38 (0.06) | 0.40 (0.16) | 0.34 (0.10) | 0.32 (0.11) | ||
M1-SMA | 0.29 (0.06) | 0.17 (0.10) | 0.30 (0.14) | 0.21 (0.16) | ||
M1-M1 | 0.47 (0.07) | 0.43 (0.13) | 0.47 (0.13) | 0.50 (0.11) | 0.10 (0.96) | |
