## 3 Results
### ICrA Data Processing Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Co-Contraction** & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S1}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S2}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S3}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S4}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S5}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S6}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S7}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S8}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S9}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S10}}\) \\ \hline TMS-C\_Ampl & 0.6 & 0.67 & 0.83 & 1 & 0.83 & 0.9 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ TMS-C\_Lat & 0.3 & 0 & 0.67 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0.7 & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.7 \\ TMS-C\_SP & 1 & 1 & 0.83 & 0.9 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ C\_Ampl-C\_Lat & 0.4 & 0.33 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0.67 & 0.6 & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.7 \\ C\_Ampl-C\_SP & 0.6 & 0.67 & 1 & 0.9 & 0.83 & 0.9 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ C\_Lat-C\_SP & 0.3 & 0 & 0.5 & 0.4 & 0.5 & 0.7 & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.7 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: ICrA obtained relations between TMS, C_Ampl, C_Lat, and C_SP during the co-contraction muscle task. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Relaved Condition** & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S1}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S2}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S3}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S4}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S5}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S6}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S7}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S8}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S9}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S10}}\) \\ \hline TMS-R\_Ampl & 1 & 1 & 0.8 & 0.7 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ TMS-R\_Lat & 0.4 & 0.7 & 0.8 & 0.1 & 0.17 & 0.5 & 0.7 & 0.8 & 0.9 & 0.8 \\ R\_Ampl-R\_Lat & 0.4 & 0.7 & 0.6 & 0.4 & 0.17 & 0.5 & 0.7 & 0.8 & 0.9 & 0.8 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: ICrA obtained relations between TMS, R_Ampl and R_Lat during relaxed muscle task. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Abduction** & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S1}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S2}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S3}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S4}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S5}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S6}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S7}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S8}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S9}}\) & \(\mathbf{\mu_{S10}}\) \\ \hline TMS-A\_Ampl & 0.6 & 0.67 & 0.83 & 1 & 0.83 & 0.8 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.9 \\ TMS-A\_Lat & 0.2 & 0.33 & 0.67 & 0.6 & 0.67 & 0.3 & 0.5 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.4 \\ TMS-A\_SP & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.83 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ A\_Ampl-A\_Lat & 0.6 & 0.67 & 0.83 & 0.6 & 0.83 & 0.4 & 0.5 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.5 \\ A\_Ampl-A\_SP & 0.6 & 0.67 & 0.83 & 1 & 0.67 & 0.8 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.9 \\ A\_Lat-A\_SP & 0.2 & 0.33 & 0.67 & 0.6 & 0.5 & 0.3 & 0.5 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: ICrA obtained relations between TMS, A_Ampl, A_Lat, and A_SP during the abduction muscle task. The results for each subject differ from the others, as can be seen from Tables 5-7. The possible reasons could be attributed again to the individual's excitability characteristics. **Case study 3. ** Determining the relations between the amplitude of MEPs, the latency of MEPs, and the durations of silent periods for different TMS intensities. IIM for case study 3 was constructed as follows: the criteria are amplitude of MEPs, latency of MEPs, and durations of silent periods at relaxed condition, abduction, and co-contraction at the five different stimulus intensities, and the objects are the respective number of investigated subjects. In the results presentation, the considered pairs of parameters are consistent with the possible physiological combinations. For the same muscle task (relaxed muscles, isometric index finger abduction, and co-contraction of antagonist muscles), the pairs are respectively MEP amplitude-MEP latency (R_Ampl-R_Lat, A_Ampl-A_Lat, C_Ampl-C_Lat), MEP amplitude-silent period (A_Ampl-A_SP, C_Ampl-C_SP), and latency-silent period (A_Lat-A_SP, C_Lat-C_SP). For different muscle tasks, the pairs are with the same parameter: MEP amplitude (R_Ampl-A_Ampl, R_Ampl-C_Ampl, A_Ampl-C_Ampl), MEP latency (R_Lat-A_Lat, R_Lat-C_Lat, A_Lat-C_Lat), and silent period (A_SP-C_SP). Table 8 summarizes these pairs in a consonance relation.