“…The site of conduction block identified by the A-SCEP and the D-SCEP, whether the two studies revealed conduction block at the same single level (78 out of 83 patients) or at two separate levels (5 out of 83 patients), corresponded to the intervertebral level of sufficient degree of cord compression with MRI evidence of either the smallest anteroposterior diameter and cross-sectional area of the cord (for 81% of 88 conduction blocks) or the second smallest anteroposterior diameter and crosssectional area of the cord (for 19% of 88 conduction blocks). This finding indicates the functional importance of direct mechanical pressure on the white matter rather than vascular factors involving the gray matter remote from the site of compression, thus causing false localizing signs [12]. Measuring the absolute values of anteroposterior diameter and cross-sectional area of the cord has a limitation in estimating the degree of cord compression, because the spinal cord varies in size depending on the level; the anteroposterior diameter normally decreases, and the One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD test is used for statistical analysis "0" represents the site of conduction block, with the other levels numbered in order of increasing distance from the "0" level, assigning a minus sign caudally Anteroposterior diameter of the cord was measured on midsagittal T1weighted MRI…”