Research Article

Integrative Medicine Case Reports, Volume 1, Issue 1 (January), 2020

 

Electrophysiological assessment of retinal functions by ERG in Ischemia/Reperfusion (I/R) Allium cepa pre-treated mice

Saurabh Kumara, Richa Shrib, Sushmita Kaushikc, Varinder Singhd, Akshay Anande*

a,e Neuroscience Research Lab, Department of Neurology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India
b,d Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Drug Research, Punjabi University, Patiala, India
c Advanced Eye Centre, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India

     

KEY WORDS

 

ABSTRACT

Allium cepa
pretreatment
ERG
PPA
Retina

 

Retinal disorders are the one of the most challenging and complex degenerative diseases that need to be addressed because of rapid increase in the number of affected individuals. Most of the available treatments strategies are inadequate to exert permanent solution to the patients. Therefore, as an alternative approach we wanted to test the efficacy of Allium cepa (A. cepa) in an Ischemia/Reperfusion (I/R) mouse model. We orally administered the aqueous extract of A. cepa at different dosages 100 mg/kg, 200 mg/kg, 300 mg/kg 24 hrs prior to the surgery. Electroretinogram (ERG) analysis was carried out at 7 day, 21 day, and 28 day after the surgery. ERG recording depicted that A. cepa administration is able to increase the implicit time but not at the statistically significant level for which larger sample size and deeper analysis is required.

 

 

 

 

 

doi: 10.38205/imcr.010118

*Corresponding author
Akshay Anand, PhD
Neuroscience Research Lab
Department of Neurology
Post Graduate Institute of Medical
Education and Research (PGIMER),
Chandigarh, India
Contact no: +91-9914209090
E-mail: akshay1anand@rediffmail.com

 

Introduction

Repeated failure in treating different neurodegenerative diseases have left no option for the researchers to think about the alternative approaches. Fruits and vegetables are the excellent alternative source to treat such disorders (1). Different studies suggest the potential role of fruits and vegetables in reducing the risk of degenerative diseases (2, 3). Flavonoids, a polyphenolic secondary metabolite are known to have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti-microbial properties. These flavonoids have been used in different in vitro and in vivo models and several studies suggests its protective role in degenerative diseases (4, 5).

Eye related disorders are most common degenerative disorders and have very limited scope of permanent cure. However, to overcome this, various traditional approaches like herbal remedy and homeopathy have been employed by ophthalmologist (6). Scientific studies have reported preventive role of onion on different eye related disorders like; Cataract (7, 8), Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD) (9).

Onion bulbs (Allium cepa L.) are the rich source of flavonoid, especially in quercetin. Different groups have elucidated the potential biological activity of A. cepa as neuroprotective, antioxidant, antiallergic, and anti-inflammatory (5, 10, 11). Published literature explains that onion extract (OE) lowers the total cholesterol content in rabbits (12) and in rats (13) fed with high cholesterol diet. Protective role of ethanolic extract of A. cepa was found in case of cognition impairments in streptozotocin induced rat diabetes model (14). The neuroprotective effect of flavonoid is known to exert by two processes: First, by interacting with lipid kinase thereby leading to the inhibition of the apoptosis. Second, by benefiting the vascular system (15).

Retinal ischemia which is a leading cause of blindness, results due to insufficient supply of blood to the retina and is known to be associated with several eye related disorders like glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, and optic retinopathy (16). There have not been many studies on neuroprotective role of onion in rescuing the retinal ganglion cell death resulting due to retinal ischemia. Therefore, in the present study we have investigated the efficacy of aqueous extract of Allium cepa in rescuing the retinal functions depicted by electroretinogram (ERG) analysis. Ischemia/Reperfusion (I/R) induced retina injured mouse model was used to alter the retinal functions thereby affecting the vision.

ERG is a non-invasive technique used to depict the retinal functions. The ability of ERG to detect and isolate various signals from a different set of retinal neurons makes it a important tool for electrophysiological measures and this can be achieved by controlling/changing the stimulus, light intensity or adaptation, and parameters for data processing (17). Data acquisition in the form of wave pattern is a means to represent and distinguish different retinal cells activity. The wave pattern generally starts in the following pattern: “a-wave” is the first negative deflection and represents the primary retinal neurons (photoreceptors: rods and cones); “b-wave” is the positive peak which represents the bipolar cells (17); c-wave originates from retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cells; oscillatory potentials (OP) originates from inner retina/amacrine cells (18). We used scotopic ERG (dark-adapted mice) for this purpose.

Methods

Animals

A C-57BL/6J male 8- to 10-week old mouse was used for the experimentation purpose. The weight of the mice ranges from 25 g-30 g. Ethical approval was obtained from animal ethical committee (IAEC) of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India. The animals were kept in the sterile cages and temperature and humidity controlled facility of PGIMER animal house with no restriction to food and water. A 12 hr light/dark cycle was followed. The animals were divided into 4 groups (Figure 1).

image

Fig. 1: Representation of the study design.

Experimental groups

The complete experiment was carried according to the GLP guidelines at Neuroscience Research Laboratory (19, 20). The A. cepa extract preparation is detailed in our previous publication (21). Different dosages of A. cepa (100 mg/kg, 200 mg/kg, 300 mg/kg) was administered 24 hours prior to the surgery. Animals were divided into 4 different groups: group 1 (Injury alone), group 2 (Injury + 100 mg/kg A. cepa pretreatment), group 3 (Injury + 200 mg/kg A. cepa pretreatment), and group 4 (Injury + 300 mg/kg A. cepa pretreatment).

Surgery

Combination of Xylazine (50 mg/ml) / Ketamine (1:4 ratio) was used to anesthetize the mice. Intraperitoneal injection (IP) was administrated. Approximately 1.5 cm incision was made around the neck region. Initially, the CCA was exposed by retracting the muscles. The bifurcation was exposed and ECA was ligated with a fine suture. Further, the bifurcation of ICA was traced down and PPA was ligated with a 7.0 mm ethicon suture. The ligation was maintained for 2 hrs after that the ligated sutures were removed and mice was allowed to reperfuse (7 day, 21 day, and 28 day) under the sterile condition. The surgery was carried out under the Leica Stereozoom microscope.

Electroretinography recordings

Scotopic electroretinography (ERG) was performed to evaluate the function of retina caused due to 2 hrs of ischemia. The experiment was carried out using iWork ERG instrument (Dover, USA). The ERG data was recorded and evaluated using Labscribe software. ERG was done for all the 4 groups. This experiment was performed once the 24 hrs dark adaptation completed. Anesthesia was administrated intraperitoneally and the animals were kept on heating pad. Tropicamide and methylcellulose eye drops were used to dilate the pupils. Ground electrode was placed on tail, negative electrode in between the ears, and positive electrode was connected to the cornea (19). The readings were taken with flashes of light. Right eye represents the ‘test eye’ whereas the left eye was taken as the ‘control eye’. Later on, the amplitudes of different wave were measured.

Results

Table 1 represents the implicit time and amplitude of both a- and b- waves depicted by ERG. Scotopic ERG was performed on 24 hrs dark adapted mice. We recorded four important parameters, i.e. implicit time to a-wave, implicit time to b-wave, amplitude of a-wave, and amplitude of b-wave. At 7 day, the implicit time to a-wave was found to be 45 ± 5.78 for Injury alone, 35 ± 8.01 for 100 mg/kg pretreated, 44.85 ± 2.86 for 200 mg/kg pretreated, and 45.45 ± 1.72 for 300 mg/kg pretreated group. We found that at 21 day the mean implicit time to a wave was highest 43.55 ± 1.72 for 200 mg/kg, whereas for injury alone it was 42.25 ± 4.51, for 100 mg/kg group it was 42.27 ± 1.62 and for 300 mg/kg it was 36.95 ± 6.75. With the increase in time points the we observed that at 28 day the implicit time to a wave also increased i.e. 51.13 ± 3.12, 43.33 ± 0.85, 44.33 ± 1.84, 46.2 ± 0.76 for injury alone, 100 mg/kg, 200 mg/kg, and 300 mg/kg, respectively. Positive wave i.e. the b-wave implicit time was found to be 88.27 ± 9.26 for injury alone at 7 day, whereas for 21 day it was 77.25 ± 7.67, and for 28 day it recorded 102.27 ± 5.72. For A. cepa pretreatment group’s implicit time to b wave at 7 day was 88.8 ± 7.17 for 100 mg/kg, 90.8 ± 2.19 for 200 mg/kg and 92.3 ± 1.45 for 300 mg/kg. At 21 day we found slight decrease in the implicit time to b-wave i.e. 87.2 ± 8.25 (100 mg/kg), 86.4 ± 3.89 (200 mg/kg), 88.3 ± 8.09 (300 mg/kg). Similar trends where observed for 28 day where mean implicit time to b- wave was recorded as follows: 79 ± 4.06, 82 ± 4.56, and 89.6 ± 5.09 for 100 mg/kg, 200 mg/kg, 300 mg/kg respectively.

Table 1: Electroretinogram (ERG) analysis for Injury alone, and A. cepa pretreated groups (100 mg/kg, 200 mg/kg, 300 mg/kg) at different time points (7 day, 21 day, 28 day) (A). a-wave implicit time; b-wave implicit time (B). a-wave amplitude; b-wave amplitude. The data is represented as mean ± SE. For Injury alone group sample size was (7 day (n = 3); 21 day (n = 4); 28 day (n = 3)); for 100 mg/kg pretreated group (7 day (n = 4); 21 day (n = 3); 28 day (n = 3)); for 200 mg/kg pretreated group (7 day (n = 4); 21 day (n = 4); 28 day (n = 3)); for 300 mg/kg pretreated group (7 day (n = 4); 21 day (n = 4); 28 day (n = 4)).

A.

Implicit Time a (Time in ms ± SE)

Implicit Time b (Time in ms ± SE)

Time/Groups

Injury

100 mg/kg

200 mg/kg

300 mg/kg

Injury

100 mg/kg

200 mg/kg

300 mg/kg

7 day

45 ± 5.78

35 ± 8.01

44.85 ± 2.86

45.45 ± 1.72

88.27 ± 9.26

88.8 ± 7.17

90.8 ± 2.19

92.3 ± 1.46

21 day

42.25 ± 4.51

42.27 ± 1.62

43.55 ± 1.72

36.95 ± 6.75

77.25 ± 7.67

87.2 ± 8.25

86.4 ± 3.89

88.3 ± 8.09

28 day

51.13 ± 3.12

43.33 ± 0.85

44.33 ± 1.84

46.2 ± 0.76

102.27 ± 5.72

79 ± 4.06

82 ± 4.56

89.6 ± 5.09

B.

Amplitude a (Time in ms ± SE)

Amplitude b (Time in ms ± SE)

Time/Groups

Injury

100 mg/kg

200 mg/kg

300 mg/kg

Injury

100 mg/kg

200 mg/kg

300 mg/kg

7 day

–0.198 ± 0.031

–0.192 ± 0.045

–0.339 ± 0.071

–0.595 ± 0.013

0.0163 ± 0.016

0.021 ± 0.03

0.007 ± 0.02

0.086 ± 0.007

21 day

–0.1025 ± 0.048

–0.363 ± 0.05

–0.205 ± 0.031

–0.407 ± 0.024

0.0295 ± 0.024

0.0673 ± 0.026

0.0617 ± 0.012

0.078 ± 0.020

28 day

–0.124 ± 0.017

–0.188 ± 0.026

–0.302 ± 0.029

–0.356 ± 0.062

0.004 ± 0.038

0.0163 ± 0.006

0.1076 ± 0.035

0.074 ± 0.044

Further, the amplitude for both the waves was recorded. The amplitude of a-wave for injury alone was –0.198 ± 0.031 (7 day), –0.1025 ± 0.048 (21 day), –0.124 ± 0.017 (28 day); for 100 mg/kg pretreatment group it was -0.192 ± 0.045 (7 day), –0.363 ± 0.05 (21 day), –0.188 ± 0.026 (28 day); for 200 mg/kg pretreatment group it was –0.339 ± 0.071 (7 day), –0.205 ± 0.031 (21 day), –0.302 ± 0.029 (28 day); and for 300 mg/kg pretreatment group it –0.595 ± 0.013 (7 day), –0.407 ± 0.024 (21 day), –0.356 ± 0.062 (28 day). Similarly, the mean amplitude of b-wave was as follows: 0.0163 ± 0.016, 0.0295 ± 0.024, 0.004 ± 0.038 for injury alone group; 0.021 ± 0.03, 0.0673 ± 0.026, 0.0163 ± 0.006 for 100 mg/kg group; 0.007 ± 0.02, 0.0617 ± 0.012, 0.1076 ± 0.035 for 200 mg/kg group; 0.086 ± 0.007, 0.078 ± 0.020, 0.074 ± 0.044 for 300 mg/kg A. cepa pretreated group at 7, 21, and 28 day time points respectively. The details of significance level have been incorporated in the supplementary file (Supplementary Table 1).

Discussion

Retinal ischemia is a serious complication associated with glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, and optic retinopathy (16). The associated condition may lead to blindness if appropriate and adequate treatments are not given on time. We have established a retinal ischemia mouse model by ligating two important arteries i.e. ophthalmic artery (PPA) and ECA (20). It’s a 2 hr occlusion model followed by reperfusion for 3 different time points: 7, 21, and 28-day. Because of the repeated failure (24) and side effects (25) of the available commercial drugs, we wanted to test the alternative approach of testing A. cepa (onion) as the pretreatment strategy to explore if it is able to improve the vision or not. Apart from its many biological benefits in the form of antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and neuroprotective activity (as shown by previous studies) its common availability makes it an important biological product to be tested for its efficacy (5, 10, 11). For this, 3 different concentrations of aqueous extract of commonly used red onion was tested i.e. 100 mg/kg, 200 mg/kg and 300 mg/kg. The functional efficacy of A. cepa in the form of retinal wave analysis is very important in retinal degeneration cases and to the best of our knowledge it has not been previously reported in such models. According to standardized protocols the ERG recordings are depicted by three important factors- the instrument setup, intensity of the light stimulus, and animal state (26).

ERG recording depicted that implicit time to a-wave decreased in all the A. cepa administered groups except for slight increase in 300 mg/kg in comparison to the Injury alone group for 7-day, however, this decrease was not statistically significant. Similarly, the implicit time to b-wave for both 21-day and 28-day increased throughout the A. cepa administered groups in comparison to the injury alone group. However, for 28-day, the implicit time to b-wave was highest for injury alone group followed by 300 mg/kg. From this, it can be said that A.cepa administration is able to increase the implicit time but not at the statistically significant level for which larger sample size and deeper analysis is required. Delay in implicit time a-wave have previously been reported in diseased cases (27). Similarly, reduction in a-wave amplitude has also been reported in certain cases. Mixed results were obtained in case of both amplitude a- and b- wave. Amplitude a-wave was recorded to be decreased in most of the A. cepa administered groups with respect to the injury alone group. Further, b-wave amplitude was highest at 7 day for 100 mg/kg; at 21 day for 300 mg/kg, and at 28 day for 200 mg/kg. So, from this data it can be concluded that A. cepa may able to improve the retinal functions depicted by ERG analysis.

Limitations of the study

Though we have tried to minimise the limitation, factors such as intensity of light stimulus, temperature/humidity, anesthesia, ocular environment, adaptive state, and other technical difficulties affecting the ERG recordings cannot be ruled out. Large sample size and more group like: Injury+ PBS/solvent comparison is needed.

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to acknowledge the Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India for providing the funding (Z.28015/106/2014-HPC(EMR)-AYUSH-A).

Authors Contribution

SK: Experimentation, data analysis, original writing
AA: Conceptualization, editing of the manuscript, securing funding.
RS: Co-conceptualization
SK: Co-conceptualization
VS: Experimentation

Ethical statement

All experiments were performed after getting the approval from Institutional Animal Ethical Committee (IAEC) via approval no: 67/IAEC/390R.

Conflicts of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Source of funding

Thanks to ministry of AYUSH file No. (Z.28015/106/2014-HPC (EMR)-AYUSH-A) Government of India

 

Received Date: 10-02-20; Revised Date: 12-02-20
Accepted Date: 26-02-20

References

1. Essa MM, Akbar M, Guillemin G. The Benefits of Natural Products for Neurodegenerative Diseases: Springer; 2016.

2. Sofi F, Dinu MR. Nutrition and prevention of chronic-degenerative diseases. Agriculture and agricultural science procedia. 2016;8:713–7.

3. Jiang X, Huang J, Song D, Deng R, Wei J, Zhang Z. Increased Consumption of Fruit and Vegetables Is Related to a Reduced Risk of Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. 2017;9:18.

4. Sarchielli E, Morelli A, Guarnieri G, Iorizzi M, Sgambati E. Neuroprotective effects of quercetin 4’-O-β-d-diglucoside on human striatal precursor cells in nutrient deprivation condition. Acta histochemica. 2018;120(2):122–8.

5. Shri R, Bora KS. Neuroprotective effect of methanolic extracts of Allium cepa on ischemia and reperfusion-induced cerebral injury. Fitoterapia. 2008;79(2):86–96.

6. Nejabat M, Salehi A, Noorani Azad P, Ashraf MJ. Effects of onion juice on the normal flora of eyelids and conjunctiva in an animal model. Jundishapur journal of microbiology. 2014;7(5):e9678–e.

7. Javadzadeh A, Ghorbanihaghjo A, Bonyadi S, Rashidi MR, Mesgari M, Rashtchizadeh N, et al. Preventive effect of onion juice on selenite-induced experimental cataract. Indian journal of ophthalmology. 2009;57(3):185.

8. Stefek M, Karasu C. Eye lens in aging and diabetes: effect of quercetin. Rejuvenation research. 2011;14(5):525–34.

9. Agte V, Tarwadi K. The importance of nutrition in the prevention of ocular disease with special reference to cataract. Ophthalmic research. 2010;44(3):166–72.

10. Sato A, Zhang T, Yonekura L, Tamura H. Antiallergic activities of eleven onions (Allium cepa) were attributed to quercetin 4'-glucoside using QuEChERS method and Pearson's correlation coefficient. Journal of Functional Foods. 2015;14:581–9.

11. Singh T, Goel RK. Neuroprotective effect of Allium cepa L. in aluminium chloride induced neurotoxicity. Neurotoxicology. 2015;49:1–7.

12. Movahedian A, Sadeghi H, Ghannadi A, Gharavi M, Azarpajooh S. Hypolipidemic activity of Allium porrum L. in cholesterol-fed rabbits. Journal of medicinal food. 2006;9(1):98–101.

13. Kumari K, Augusti K. Lipid lowering effect of S-methyl cysteine sulfoxide from Allium cepa Linn in high cholesterol diet fed rats. Journal of ethnopharmacology. 2007;109(3):367–71.

14. Tamtaji OR, Hosseinzadeh H, Talaei SA, Behnam M, Firoozeh SMT, Taghizadeh M, et al. Protective Effects of Red Onion (Allium cepa) Ethanolic Extract on Learning and Memory Impairments in Animal Models of Diabetes. Galen Medical Journal. 2017;6(3):249–57.

15. Vauzour D, Vafeiadou K, Rodriguez-Mateos A, Rendeiro C, Spencer JPE. The neuroprotective potential of flavonoids: a multiplicity of effects. Genes & nutrition. 2008;3(3-4):115–26.

16. Minhas G, Morishita R, Anand A. Preclinical models to investigate retinal ischemia: advances and drawbacks. Frontiers in neurology. 2012;3:75.

17. Tomiyama Y, Fujita K, Nishiguchi KM, Tokashiki N, Daigaku R, Tabata K, et al. Measurement of electroretinograms and visually evoked potentials in awake moving mice. PloS one. 2016;11(6).

18. Hema L. Ramkumar KDE, Koushik Tripathy, Peter A. Karth, Usha Rajapuram Kumar, and Vinay A. Shah. Electroretinogram: EyeWiki; [updated 15 November 2019. Available from: https://eyewiki.aao.org/Electroretinogram.

19. Neuroscience Research Lab DoN, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh. Redefining Quality Standards in Basic Research Investigations by Broadening the Purview of GLP: Quality Council of India.

20. Bammidi S, Sharma K, Tyagi R, Sharma NK, Anand A. Eye Genetics: The Road Ahead to Quality Standards. Advances in Vision Research, Volume I: Springer; 2017. p. 473–80.

21. Kumar S, Modgil S, Bammidi S, Minhas G, Shri R, Kaushik S, et al. Allium cepa exerts neuroprotective effect on retinal ganglion cells of pterygopalatine artery (PPA) ligated mice. J Ayurveda Integr Med. 2020.

22. Modgil S, Cameotra SS, Sharma VL, Anand A. Early Life Pb Exposure and its Effect on Later Life Retinal Degeneration. Journal of cellular biochemistry. 2017.

23. Minhas G, Prabhakar S, Morishita R, Shimamura M, Bansal R, Anand A. Transplantation of lineage-negative stem cells in pterygopalatine artery ligation induced retinal ischemia–reperfusion injury in mice. Molecular and cellular biochemistry. 2017;429(1–2):123–36.

24. Kumar S, Modgil S, Bammidi S, Minhas G, Shri R, Kaushik S, et al. Allium cepa exerts neuroprotective effect on retinal ganglion cells of pterygopalatine artery (PPA) ligated mice. Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine. 2020.

25. Farkouh A, Frigo P, Czejka M. Systemic side effects of eye drops: a pharmacokinetic perspective. Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, NZ). 2016;10:2433.

26. Brandli A, Stone J. Using the electroretinogram to assess function in the rodent retina and the protective effects of remote limb ischemic preconditioning. JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments). 2015(100):e52658.

27. Hancock HA, Kraft TW. Oscillatory potential analysis and ERGs of normal and diabetic rats. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2004;45(3):1002-8.

Supplementary Table 1

POST HOC TESTS

1. IMPLICIT TIME A-WAVE

Multiple Comparisons

1.1. Dependent Variable: Implicit Time A-Wave: 7 Day

7 Day

(I) Group

(J) Group

Mean
Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Scheffe

Injury

Hundred

10.0000

7.6475

.646

-15.089

35.089

Two Hundred

.1500

7.6475

1.000

-24.939

25.239

Three Hundred

-.4500

7.6475

1.000

-25.539

24.639

Hundred

Injury

-10.0000

7.6475

.646

-35.089

15.089

Two Hundred

-9.8500

7.0803

.602

-33.077

13.377

Three Hundred

-10.4500

7.0803

.557

-33.677

12.777

Two Hundred

Injury

-.1500

7.6475

1.000

-25.239

24.939

Hundred

9.8500

7.0803

.602

-13.377

33.077

Three Hundred

-.6000

7.0803

1.000

-23.827

22.627

Three Hundred

Injury

.4500

7.6475

1.000

-24.639

25.539

Hundred

10.4500

7.0803

.557

-12.777

33.677

Two Hundred

.6000

7.0803

1.000

-22.627

23.827

Dunnett t (2-sided)a

Injury

Three Hundred

-.4500

7.6475

1.000

-21.281

20.381

Hundred

Three Hundred

-10.4500

7.0803

.364

-29.735

8.835

Two Hundred

Three Hundred

-.6000

7.0803

1.000

-19.885

18.685

1.2. Dependent Variable: Implicit Time A-Wave: 21 Day

21 Day

(I) Group 2

(J) Group 2

Mean
Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Scheffe

Injury

Hundred

-.01667

6.68074

1.000

-21.9335

21.9001

Two Hundred

-1.30000

6.18516

.997

-21.5910

18.9910

Three Hundred

5.30000

6.18516

.863

-14.9910

25.5910

Hundred

Injury

.01667

6.68074

1.000

-21.9001

21.9335

Two Hundred

-1.28333

6.68074

.998

-23.2001

20.6335

Three Hundred

5.31667

6.68074

.887

-16.6001

27.2335

Two Hundred

Injury

1.30000

6.18516

.997

-18.9910

21.5910

Hundred

1.28333

6.68074

.998

-20.6335

23.2001

Three Hundred

6.60000

6.18516

.770

-13.6910

26.8910

Three Hundred

Injury

-5.30000

6.18516

.863

-25.5910

14.9910

Hundred

-5.31667

6.68074

.887

-27.2335

16.6001

Two Hundred

-6.60000

6.18516

.770

-26.8910

13.6910

Dunnett t (2-sided)a

Injury

Three Hundred

5.30000

6.18516

.736

-11.5473

22.1473

Hundred

Three Hundred

5.31667

6.68074

.774

-12.8805

23.5138

Two Hundred

Three Hundred

6.60000

6.18516

.601

-10.2473

23.4473

1.3. Dependent Variable: Implicit Time A-Wave: 28 Day

28 Day

(I) Group 3

(J) Group 3

Mean
Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Scheffe

Injury

Hundred

7.80000

2.58314

.085

-.9932

16.5932

Two Hundred

6.80000

2.58314

.145

-1.9932

15.5932

Three Hundred

4.93333

2.41630

.308

-3.2919

13.1586

Hundred

Injury

-7.80000

2.58314

.085

-16.5932

.9932

Two Hundred

-1.00000

2.58314

.984

-9.7932

7.7932

Three Hundred

-2.86667

2.41630

.711

-11.0919

5.3586

Two Hundred

Injury

-6.80000

2.58314

.145

-15.5932

1.9932

Hundred

1.00000

2.58314

.984

-7.7932

9.7932

Three Hundred

-1.86667

2.41630

.895

-10.0919

6.3586

Three Hundred

Injury

-4.93333

2.41630

.308

-13.1586

3.2919

Hundred

2.86667

2.41630

.711

-5.3586

11.0919

Two Hundred

1.86667

2.41630

.895

-6.3586

10.0919

Dunnett t (2-sided)a

Injury

Three Hundred

4.93333

2.41630

.171

-1.9099

11.7766

Hundred

Three Hundred

-2.86667

2.41630

.540

-9.7099

3.9766

Two Hundred

Three Hundred

-1.86667

2.41630

.796

-8.7099

4.9766

2. IMPLICIT TIME B-WAVE

2.1. Dependent Variable: Implicit Time B-Wave: 7 Day

7 Day

(I) Group 1

(J) Group 1

Mean
Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Scheffe

Injury

Hundred

-.53333

8.02095

1.000

-26.8468

25.7802

Two Hundred

-2.53333

8.02095

.991

-28.8468

23.7802

Three Hundred

-4.03333

8.02095

.967

-30.3468

22.2802

Hundred

Injury

.53333

8.02095

1.000

-25.7802

26.8468

Two Hundred

-2.00000

7.42596

.995

-26.3616

22.3616

Three Hundred

-3.50000

7.42596

.973

-27.8616

20.8616

Two Hundred

Injury

2.53333

8.02095

.991

-23.7802

28.8468

Hundred

2.00000

7.42596

.995

-22.3616

26.3616

Three Hundred

-1.50000

7.42596

.998

-25.8616

22.8616

Three Hundred

Injury

4.03333

8.02095

.967

-22.2802

30.3468

Hundred

3.50000

7.42596

.973

-20.8616

27.8616

Two Hundred

1.50000

7.42596

.998

-22.8616

25.8616

Dunnett t 2-sided)a

Injury

Three Hundred

-4.03333

8.02095

.924

-25.8810

17.8143

Hundred

Three Hundred

-3.50000

7.42596

.936

-23.7270

16.7270

Two Hundred

Three Hundred

-1.50000

7.42596

.994

-21.7270

18.7270

2.2. Dependent Variable: Implicit Time B-Wave: 21 Day

21 Day

(I) Group 2

(J) Group 2

Mean
Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Scheffe

Injury

Hundred

-9.95000

10.50654

.826

-44.4177

24.5177

Two Hundred

-9.15000

9.72716

.828

-41.0609

22.7609

Three Hundred

-11.05000

9.72716

.736

-42.9609

20.8609

Hundred

Injury

9.95000

10.50654

.826

-24.5177

44.4177

Two Hundred

.80000

10.50654

1.000

-33.6677

35.2677

Three Hundred

-1.10000

10.50654

1.000

-35.5677

33.3677

Two Hundred

Injury

9.15000

9.72716

.828

-22.7609

41.0609

Hundred

-.80000

10.50654

1.000

-35.2677

33.6677

Three Hundred

-1.90000

9.72716

.998

-33.8109

30.0109

Three Hundred

Injury

11.05000

9.72716

.736

-20.8609

42.9609

Hundred

1.10000

10.50654

1.000

-33.3677

35.5677

Two Hundred

1.90000

9.72716

.998

-30.0109

33.8109

Dunnett t (2-sided)a

Injury

Three Hundred

-11.05000

9.72716

.557

-37.5451

15.4451

Hundred

Three Hundred

-1.10000

10.50654

.999

-29.7180

27.5180

Two Hundred

Three Hundred

-1.90000

9.72716

.995

-28.3951

24.5951

2.3. Dependent Variable: Implicit Time B-Wave: 28 Day

28 Day

(I) Group 3

(J) Group 3

Mean
Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Scheffe

Injury

Hundred

23.26667

7.36009

.070

-1.7875

48.3209

Two Hundred

20.26667

7.36009

.123

-4.7875

45.3209

Three Hundred

12.66667

6.88473

.388

-10.7694

36.1027

Hundred

Injury

-23.26667

7.36009

.070

-48.3209

1.7875

Two Hundred

-3.00000

7.36009

.982

-28.0542

22.0542

Three Hundred

-10.60000

6.88473

.529

-34.0361

12.8361

Two Hundred

Injury

-20.26667

7.36009

.123

-45.3209

4.7875

Hundred

3.00000

7.36009

.982

-22.0542

28.0542

Three Hundred

-7.60000

6.88473

.752

-31.0361

15.8361

Three Hundred

Injury

-12.66667

6.88473

.388

-36.1027

10.7694

Hundred

10.60000

6.88473

.529

-12.8361

34.0361

Two Hundred

7.60000

6.88473

.752

-15.8361

31.0361

Dunnett t (2-sided)a

Injury

Three Hundred

12.66667

6.88473

.230

-6.8318

32.1651

Hundred

Three Hundred

-10.60000

6.88473

.349

-30.0984

8.8984

Two Hundred

Three Hundred

-7.60000

6.88473

.591

-27.0984

11.8984

3. AMPLITUDE a-WAVE

3.1. Dependent Variable: Amplitude a-Wave: 7 Day

7 Day

(I) Group 1

(J) Group 1

Mean
Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Scheffe

Injury

Hundred

-.0062500

.0701467

1.000

-.236373

.223873

Two Hundred

.1410000

.0701467

.310

-.089123

.371123

Three Hundred

.3965000*

.0701467

.001

.166377

.626623

Hundred

Injury

.0062500

.0701467

1.000

-.223873

.236373

Two Hundred

.1472500

.0649432

.222

-.065802

.360302

Three Hundred

.4027500*

.0649432

.001

.189698

.615802

Two Hundred

Injury

-.1410000

.0701467

.310

-.371123

.089123

Hundred

-.1472500

.0649432

.222

-.360302

.065802

Three Hundred

.2555000*

.0649432

.018

.042448

.468552

Three Hundred

Injury

-.3965000*

.0701467

.001

-.626623

-.166377

Hundred

-.4027500*

.0649432

.001

-.615802

-.189698

Two Hundred

-.2555000*

.0649432

.018

-.468552

-.042448

Dunnett t (2-sided)b

Injury

Three Hundred

.3965000*

.0701467

.000

.205433

.587567

Hundred

Three Hundred

.4027500*

.0649432

.000

.225856

.579644

Two Hundred

Three Hundred

.2555000*

.0649432

.006

.078606

.432394

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

3.2. Dependent Variable: Amplitude a-Wave: 21 Day

21 Day

(I) Group 2

(J) Group 2

Mean
Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Scheffe

Injury

Hundred

.2615000*

.0570859

.007

.074224

.448776

Two Hundred

.1032500

.0528513

.332

-.070134

.276634

Three Hundred

.3055000*

.0528513

.001

.132116

.478884

Hundred

Injury

-.2615000*

.0570859

.007

-.448776

-.074224

Two Hundred

-.1582500

.0570859

.108

-.345526

.029026

Three Hundred

.0440000

.0570859

.896

-.143276

.231276

Two Hundred

Injury

-.1032500

.0528513

.332

-.276634

.070134

Hundred

.1582500

.0570859

.108

-.029026

.345526

Three Hundred

.2022500*

.0528513

.021

.028866

.375634

Three Hundred

Injury

-.3055000*

.0528513

.001

-.478884

-.132116

Hundred

-.0440000

.0570859

.896

-.231276

.143276

Two Hundred

-.2022500*

.0528513

.021

-.375634

-.028866

Dunnett t (2-sided)b

Injury

Three Hundred

.3055000*

.0528513

.000

.161542

.449458

Hundred

Three Hundred

.0440000

.0570859

.789

-.111492

.199492

Two Hundred

Three Hundred

.2022500*

.0528513

.007

.058292

.346208

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

3.3. Dependent Variable: Amplitude a-Wave: 28 Day

28 Day

(I) Group 3

(J) Group 3

Mean
Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Scheffe

Injury

Hundred

.0640000

.0637237

.800

-.152920

.280920

Two Hundred

.1776667

.0637237

.117

-.039253

.394586

Three Hundred

.2315000*

.0596081

.026

.028590

.434410

Hundred

Injury

-.0640000

.0637237

.800

-.280920

.152920

Two Hundred

.1136667

.0637237

.413

-.103253

.330586

Three Hundred

.1675000

.0596081

.114

-.035410

.370410

Two Hundred

Injury

-.1776667

.0637237

.117

-.394586

.039253

Hundred

-.1136667

.0637237

.413

-.330586

.103253

Three Hundred

.0538333

.0596081

.844

-.149076

.256743

Three Hundred

Injury

-.2315000*

.0596081

.026

-.434410

-.028590

Hundred

-.1675000

.0596081

.114

-.370410

.035410

Two Hundred

-.0538333

.0596081

.844

-.256743

.149076

Dunnett t (2-sided)b

Injury

Three Hundred

.2315000*

.0596081

.010

.062682

.400318

Hundred

Three Hundred

.1675000

.0596081

.052

-.001318

.336318

Two Hundred

Three Hundred

.0538333

.0596081

.717

-.114985

.222651

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

4. AMPLITUDE b-WAVE

4.1. Dependent Variable: Amplitude b-Wave: 7 Day

7 Day

(I) Group 1

(J) Group 1

Mean
Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Scheffe

Injury

Hundred

-.0046667

.0343660

.999

-.117407

.108074

Two Hundred

.0093333

.0343660

.994

-.103407

.122074

Three Hundred

-.0696667

.0343660

.303

-.182407

.043074

Hundred

Injury

.0046667

.0343660

.999

-.108074

.117407

Two Hundred

.0140000

.0318167

.978

-.090378

.118378

Three Hundred

-.0650000

.0318167

.297

-.169378

.039378

Two Hundred

Injury

-.0093333

.0343660

.994

-.122074

.103407

Hundred

-.0140000

.0318167

.978

-.118378

.090378

Three Hundred

-.0790000

.0318167

.165

-.183378

.025378

Three Hundred

Injury

.0696667

.0343660

.303

-.043074

.182407

Hundred

.0650000

.0318167

.297

-.039378

.169378

Two Hundred

.0790000

.0318167

.165

-.025378

.183378

Dunnett t (2-sided)a

Injury

Three Hundred

-.0696667

.0343660

.160

-.163274

.023940

Hundred

Three Hundred

-.0650000

.0318167

.156

-.151663

.021663

Two Hundred

Three Hundred

-.0790000

.0318167

.075

-.165663

.007663

4.2. Dependent Variable: Amplitude b-Wave: 21 Day

21 Day

(I) Group 2

(J) Group 2

Mean
Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Scheffe

Injury

Hundred

-.0378333

.0306341

.685

-.138331

.062665

Two Hundred

-.0322500

.0283616

.735

-.125293

.060793

Three Hundred

-.0485000

.0283616

.439

-.141543

.044543

Hundred

Injury

.0378333

.0306341

.685

-.062665

.138331

Two Hundred

.0055833

.0306341

.998

-.094915

.106081

Three Hundred

-.0106667

.0306341

.989

-.111165

.089831

Two Hundred

Injury

.0322500

.0283616

.735

-.060793

.125293

Hundred

-.0055833

.0306341

.998

-.106081

.094915

Three Hundred

-.0162500

.0283616

.953

-.109293

.076793

Three Hundred

Injury

.0485000

.0283616

.439

-.044543

.141543

Hundred

.0106667

.0306341

.989

-.089831

.111165

Two Hundred

.0162500

.0283616

.953

-.076793

.109293

Dunnett t (2-sided)a

Injury

Three Hundred

-.0485000

.0283616

.261

-.125752

.028752

Hundred

Three Hundred

-.0106667

.0306341

.972

-.094109

.072775

Two Hundred

Three Hundred

-.0162500

.0283616

.894

-.093502

.061002

4.3. Dependent Variable: Amplitude b-Wave: 28 Day

28 Day

(I) Group 3

(J) Group 3

Mean
Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Scheffe

Injury

Hundred

-.0123333

.0541912

.997

-.196804

.172137

Two Hundred

-.1036667

.0541912

.358

-.288137

.080804

Three Hundred

-.0700000

.0506913

.611

-.242556

.102556

Hundred

Injury

.0123333

.0541912

.997

-.172137

.196804

Two Hundred

-.0913333

.0541912

.458

-.275804

.093137

Three Hundred

-.0576667

.0506913

.736

-.230223

.114890

Two Hundred

Injury

.1036667

.0541912

.358

-.080804

.288137

Hundred

.0913333

.0541912

.458

-.093137

.275804

Three Hundred

.0336667

.0506913

.929

-.138890

.206223

Three Hundred

Injury

.0700000

.0506913

.611

-.102556

.242556

Hundred

.0576667

.0506913

.736

-.114890

.230223

Two Hundred

-.0336667

.0506913

.929

-.206223

.138890

Dunnett t (2-sided)a

Injury

Three Hundred

-.0700000

.0506913

.429

-.213564

.073564

Hundred

Three Hundred

-.0576667

.0506913

.570

-.201231

.085898

Two Hundred

Three Hundred

.0336667

.0506913

.855

-.109898

.177231

b Dunnett t-tests treat one group as a control, and compare all other groups against it.