Conversely, several linear regressions appeared significant for the AOT and, in particular, those concerning the gain of similarity of ADM during both the reaching (β = − 0.39, R 2 = 0.15, p = 0.02) and holding (β = − 0.39, R 2 = 0.15, p = 0.02) phases, with FDI during the holding phase showing a trend towards significance (β = − 0.34, R 2 = 0.11, p = 0.04 with threshold after FDR set at 0.02).
Indeed, the model accounting for nine variables (the gain of similarity of three muscles per three phases) was almost significant (R = 0.65, p = 0.07), with the individual contributions confirming a prominent role of similarity gain for ADM in reaching (β = − 0.41 p = 0.02) and holding (β = − 0.40 p = 0.06) phases, and only marginal, non-significant, contributions of other variables.
More interestingly, the same analysis conducted on the trainee-model similarity (R 2 ) returned significant or near-to-significance main effect of Time [OP: F( 5,350 ) = 2.05, p = 0.07; FDI: F( 5,350 ) = 3.16, p = 0.008] and Time*Group interaction [OP: F( 5,350 ) = 2.33, p = 0.04; FDI: F( 5,350 ) = 1.84, p = 0.10] but no significant effect of Group.
All S6 scores significantly detached from baseline as demonstrated by the results of the one-sample t-tests where both GA and MD returned significant findings [GA: AOT t (35) = − 7.20, p < 0.001; CTRL t (35) = − 4.96, p < 0.001], [MD: AOT t (35) = − 3.00, p = 0.005; CTRL t (35) = − 3.91, p < 0.001] while FL exhibited only a trend toward significance but selectively for the AOT group [AOT t (35) = − 1.61, p = 0.12; CTRL t (35) = − 1.10, p = 0.28].