period) revealed a significant two-way interaction between group and period [F(4,148) = 3.59, P = 0.008]. This finding indicated that PAC was modulated differently in patients and controls. Therefore, we applied one-way ANOVA on the effect of period for patients and controls, separately. The one-way ANOVA of patients revealed significant effects of period [F(4,72) = 3.10, P = 0.021, FDR corrected], as did the results for controls [F(4,76) = 12.70, P < 0.001, FDR corrected]. We then performed post hoc comparisons in terms of differences between adjacent periods, respectively, for patients and controls. As shown in Fig. 5E, post hoc testing of neighboring periods of patients revealed that only the PAC decrease from T1 to T2 showed marginal significance. Regarding the PAC changes in controls, dynPAC significantly decreased from T1 to T2, and continuously decreased from T2 to T3, followed by a rebound from T3 to T4, as shown in Fig. 5E From the finger-flexion period to the post-flexion offset period (T4 to T5), no significant PAC increase was found in either controls or patients (Fig. 5E). Notably, the absolute PAC values did not differ between patients and controls in any of the 5 periods (Wilcoxon rank-sum, all P >
