Figure ​Figure2C2C shows the source strength as a function of time for the four corresponding dipoles. All sources share nearly the same time course of waveform across the movement times, with minor discrepancies in peak times. Correlation

analyses of the time courses of activities between all possible pairs among four sources showed high coefficient values more than 0.98 (P < 0.001, n = 1200 for all) in all subjects, supporting the view that all the MF, MEFI, MEFII, and MEFIII components can be explained well by the same dipole. Figure 2 Spatiotemporal characteristics of source Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical response modeled for movement-related cerebral fields (MRCFs). (A) Superpositions of four dipole sources (smf, sm1–sm3) on Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical an MR image in posterior/superior oblique view. (B) The same superpositions of ... Similar procedures were applied to data for the remaining subjects. Figure ​Figure3A3A shows plots Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of the locations for smf, sm1–sm3 of

all subjects, depicted in three orthogonal planes of MEG coordinates. The smf and sm1 were confirmed across subjects, whereas those for sm2 and sm3 were identified in nine and four subjects, selleck chemical respectively. No difference was found in source locations in the medial–lateral (x) direction (F = 0.45, P = 0.72), anterior–posterior (y) direction (F = 0.16, P = 0.93), and superior–inferior (z) direction (F = 0.59, P = 0.63). Similarly, the source orientation did not differ significantly among Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the four dipoles. Figure ​Figure3B3B illustrates this in three orthogonal planes. The orientations of the four components averaged 67 ± 11°, 154 ± 9°, and 50 ± 10° in the horizontal (xy), sagittal (yz), and coronal (xz) planes, respectively. In each plane, no difference was found in orientation

among the four components (F = 1.91, P = 0.15 in a; F = 1.96, P = 0.14 in b; F = 0.64, P = 0.66 in c). Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical These consistencies of source profiles in terms of locations and Dacomitinib orientations suggest that a series of prominent peaks of MRCFs could not be selleck ascribed to the manifestation of separate source activities. Figure 3 Spatial locations and orientations of four sources in the movement-related cerebral fields (MRCFs). (A) Plots for the locations of four independent sources (smf, sm1–sm3) in MRCFs in all subjects, in horizontal (a), sagittal (b), and coronal (c) … Relation to EMG activities The temporal relationship between MRCFs and EMGs is shown in Figure ​Figure4.4. The MRCF waveform modeled from smf (A) and rectified EMG signals (B), both time locked to the trigger pulse, was averaged across subjects.