## 5 Conclusions  
In this study, we were unable to demonstrate a superior electrophysiological and/or motor effect of a single intervention where PAS was combined with MI exercises compared to interventions where each intervention was administered separately in hemiparetic stroke patients. However, each intervention demonstrated a beneficial effect on stroke participants' hand motor function as shown with the increases in paretic wrist aROM. The MIPAS results also suggest a dissociation between MEP area measurements and wrist motor function, which once again calls into question the relevance of using MEP measurements to explain poststroke motor recovery and the mechanisms underlying improvements in motor performance in poststroke patients. The results of MIPAS need to be confirmed in less heterogeneous subgroups of stroke patients to further investigate questions related to the stratification of patients for PAS interventions, based on individual and specific characteristics.  
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/appJ1306063/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/appJ1306063/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/appJ1306063/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/appJ1306063/s1)), Table S1: Mean MEP changes relative to presentation values across time for each intervention session (PAS/MI, PAS, and ShamPAS/MI).; Table S2: Mean paretic wrist active extension range of motion changes (AaROM, in degrees \({}^{\circ}\)) relative to presentation values across time for each session (PAS/MI, PAS, and ShamPAS/MI); Figure S1: Number (mean \(\pm\) SD) of imagined movements with the affected and unaffected hands during the three time periods of the TDMI screening test. Figure S2: Pearson correlation results between the number of movements imagined with the paretic hand during the 25 and 45 s periods of the TDMI screening test and the kinesthetic scores obtained during the KVIQ test.  
**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, E.C.-L., M.T. and P.M.; Formal analysis, N.B., E.C.-L., B.L. and I.L.; Funding acquisition, E.C.-L., M.T. and P.M.; Investigation, N.B., E.C.-L. and M.T.; Methodology, N.B., E.C.-L., M.T., I.L. and P.M.; Resources, E.C.-L., E.M., C.C., X.d.B. and D.G.; Writing--original draft, N.B., E.C.-L. and P.M.; Writing--review and editing, N.B., E.C.-L., M.T., B.L., E.M., C.C., X.d.B., D.G., I.L. and P.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
**Funding:** This work was supported by a grant from the 'Fondation de l'Avenir' (trial n\({}^{\circ}\)ET2-669) and from the Toulouse University Hospital, local grant 2012, N\({}^{\circ}\) RC31/12/38902.  
**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee (Comite de Protection des Personnes Sud-Ouest et Outre-Mer II) in January 2013 (RCB 2012-A 01419-34) and registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT02779218).  
**Informed Consent Statement:** All the participants gave their written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.  
**Data Availability Statement:** The dataset used and analyzed during the current study may be available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.  
**Acknowledgments:** We would like to thank the Inserm/UPS UMR1214 Technical Platform for their help in setting up the fMRI experiment and for the acquisitions of the MRI sequences and the patients who agreed to participate in the study. The author [PERSON] is now affiliated with the Tim and Caroline Reynolds Center for Spinal Stimulation, Kessler Foundation and the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rutgers University--New Jersey Medical School; NJ, United States.  
**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.