Network alterations underlying anxiety symptoms in early multiple sclerosis

Table 3 Coherence

Coherence	MS patients	Healthy controls	p value^a
Theta (rest) HIP–PFC	0.33 ± 0.006	0.38 ± 0.05	0.0001
Gamma (rest) HIP–PFC	0.39 ± 0.04	0.22 ± 0.04	< 0.0001
Theta (after threat) HIP–PFC	0.41 ± 0.04	0.48 ± 0.05	0.0057
Gamma (after threat) HIP–PFC	0.32 ± 0.06	0.47 ± 0.04	0.0032
Theta (rest) HIP–AMG	0.39 ± 0.02	0.40 ± 0.05	0.132
Gamma (rest) HIP–AMG	0.45 ± 0.03	0.37 ± 0.02	< 0.0001
Theta (after threat) HIP–AMG	0.39 ± 0.05	0.50 ± 0.05	< 0.0001
Gamma (after threat) HIP–AMG	0.41 ± 0.03	0.29 ± 0.06	< 0.0001
Theta (at rest) PFC–AMG	0.40 ± 0.02	0.39 ± 0.03	0.234
Gamma (at rest) PFC–AMG	0.35 ± 0.03	0.44 ± 0.03	< 0.0001
Theta (after threat) PFC–AMG	0.42 ± 0.04	0.31 ± 0.01	< 0.0001
Gamma (after threat) PFC–AMG	0.22 ± 0.05	0.37 ± 0.04	< 0.0001

Coherence between prefrontal cortex, amygdala and hippocampus at rest and during threat processing in the TMS–HD-EEG study according to Additional file 1: Fig S2. The coherence is expressed as mean ± standard deviation
PFC prefrontal cortex, HIP hippocampus, AMG amygdala
^aP values derived from two-tailed Student’s t test

ISSN: 1742-2094