# Impact of Visual Kinesthetic Illusions on Reciprocal Inhibition and Motor Function
## 3 Results  
### Reciprocal Inhibition  
The Sol background EMG, Sol Mmax amplitude value, and TA M wave amplitude value are shown in Tables 1-3, respectively. Representative raw data of the Sol and TA waveforms are shown in Figure 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Pre** & **Post 0** & **Post 5** & **Post 10** \\ \hline Sham & 5.2 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 5.5 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 5.1 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 5.2 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ Illusion & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 8.1 \(\pm\) 3.2 & 5.3 \(\pm\) 0.2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Data are presented as mean \(\pm\) SE. Sol background EMG (uV) (EMG 30–50 ms before test stimulus).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Electromyography (EMG) background for Sol. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Pre** & **Post 0** & **Post 5** & **Post 10** \\ \hline Sham & 66.8 \(\pm\) 8.8 & 72.3 \(\pm\) 8.5 & 68.7 \(\pm\) 8.9 & 70.0 \(\pm\) 8.4 \\ Illusion & 67.9 \(\pm\) 7.5 & 69.4 \(\pm\) 7.1 & 70.6 \(\pm\) 6.8 & 69.2 \(\pm\) 7.3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Data are presented as mean \(\pm\) SE (uV).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Maximum amplitude values of Sol. Figure 2: Representative raw data tracing. Representative raw data tracing of one participant for the illusion condition. The stimulation conditions were single from top to bottom, with CTI 2 ms (reciprocal Ia inhibition) and CTI 20 ms (D1 inhibition) for the Sol and TA. The 10 waveforms of theSol H-reflex are shown, and the bold black lines represent the summed averages of the 10 waveforms. The horizontal data show the changes over time before (Pre), immediately after (Post 0), 5 min after (Post 5), and 10 min after (post 10) the intervention. CTI, conditioning stimulation-test stimulation interval; Sol, soleus muscle; TA, tibialis anterior muscle. The results of repeated measures three-way ANOVA did not reveal a main effect of the intervention condition [F(1, 17) = 0.921, \(p\) = 0.351, partial \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.051] or measurement time [F(3, 51) = 0.047, \(p\) = 0.987, partial \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.003]; however, a main effects of the stimulus condition [F(2, 34) = 60.751, \(p\) = 0.001, partial \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.781] and the interaction of the three factors [F(6, 102) = 3.243, \(p\) = 0.006, partial \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.160] were observed. The H-reflex amplitude values at the measurement times under CTI 2 ms and CTI 20 ms were compared with the values at Pre. In CTI 2 ms, both the sham and illusion conditions did not show a significant difference in the H-reflex amplitude compared with Pre (Figure 3a,c). In CTI 20 ms, the H-reflex amplitude value under the sham condition did not significantly differ from Pre (Figure 3b), but that under the illusion condition was significantly lower at Post 10 than at Pre (\(p\) = 0.036, Figure 3d). There was no notable variation in the H-reflex amplitude value during the single condition at each measurement time across both intervention conditions (Table 4). Consequently, the stimulation achieved a consistent H-reflex amplitude value in both intervention conditions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **Pre** & **Post 0** & **Post 5** & **Post 10** \\ \hline Sham & Single & 19.6 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 19.4 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 19.2 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 19.5 \(\pm\) 0.5 \\  & CTI 2 ms & 17.1 \(\pm\) 0.6 \(\dagger\) & 18.2 \(\pm\) 0.4 * & 17.6 \(\pm\) 0.7 * & 18.5 \(\pm\) 0.6 \\  & CTI 20 ms & 14.6 \(\pm\) 0.8 \(\dagger\) & 15.1 \(\pm\) 0.6 \(\dagger\) & 14.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 \(\dagger\) & 15.2 \(\pm\) 0.5 \(\dagger\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Sol H-reflex amplitude (%Mmax). Figure 3: Changes in reciprocal inhibition over time. (**a,c**) depict the CTI at 2 ms, whereas (**b,d**) represent the CTI at 20 ms. The top row corresponds to the sham condition, whereas the bottom row indicates the illusion condition. The thin solid lines track changes over time for the 18 participants, whereas the thick solid lines represent the average values.