marginally significantp = 0.07
However, when solely comparing the two masses with the isotonic baseline in T2, a marginally significant HAPTIC SETTING effect was found [ F (2, 4) = 5.63, p = 0.07].
However, when solely comparing the two masses with the isotonic baseline in T2, a marginally significant HAPTIC SETTING effect was found [ F (2, 4) = 5.63, p = 0.07].
Still, FMTs in T2 were shorter for Stiffness 1 compared to the isotonic condition (Cosm1: −0.8%, Cosm2: −7.5%, Cosm3: −32.8%; M = 4.8 s, p < 0.05; 1tt) and the same pattern also emerged when comparing Stiffness 2 and the isotonic condition in T2 (Cosm1: −5.0%, Cosm2: −7.2%, Cosm3: −30.0%; see Figure 6 ) although the post-hoc comparison failed to reach significance in this case ( M = 4.8 s, p = 0.14; 1tt).