Corrigendum: The quest for EEG power band correlation with ICA derived fMRI resting state networks

We have noticed that during the revision process of the original manuscript a modification in the analysis script to enable the parallel processing of more data sets led to incorrect indices for the selection of active dipoles. This mistake in the analysis pipeline affected the results of SFPC, i.e., Figure 5 and the part of Table 1 labeled “SFPC variance for 5 subjects.”

Table 1.

Correction of Table 1 in the original manuscript for GFPC and SFPC.

	RSN1	RSN2	RSN3	RSN4	RSN5	RSN6	RSN6b	RSN7	RSN8	RSN9	RSN10	RSN11	Average
GFPC 5 SUBJECTS
Delta	1.152	1.124	1.219	1.189	0.972	1.342	1.513	0.849	1.161	0.917	1.242	0.959	1.137
Theta	0.812	0.944	0.923	1.121	0.923	1.190	1.135	0.867	1.161	0.734	0.949	0.860	0.968
Alpha	1.448	1.315	1.325	1.253	0.885	1.323	1.503	1.317	1.161	0.990	1.336	1.109	1.247
Beta	1.209	1.168	1.091	1.137	0.843	1.071	1.049	1.109	1.161	1.064	1.483	1.149	1.128
													1.120
SFPC 5 SUBJECTS
Delta	1.000	0.931	0.863	0.861	1.185	0.938	1.248	1.000	0.891	1.137	0.786	0.913	0.979
Theta	1.015	0.859	0.843	0.951	0.856	0.920	0.906	0.843	0.891	1.160	0.979	0.980	0.934
Alpha	1.175	0.937	0.939	0.899	0.871	0.903	0.944	0.929	0.891	0.785	1.152	1.011	0.953
Beta	1.101	1.220	1.003	0.996	1.319	0.844	0.952	0.803	0.891	1.044	1.373	0.997	1.045
													0.978
SFPC CORRECTED 5 SUBJECTS
Delta	1.285	1.352	1.022	1.334	0.931	1.307	0.839	0.956	1.353	1.038	1.211	0.861	1.124
Theta	0.919	1.158	1.278	0.995	0.861	1.090	1.037	0.937	1.353	0.837	0.929	0.800	1.016
Alpha	0.764	0.844	0.812	1.012	0.717	0.946	0.891	0.980	1.353	0.757	0.913	0.873	0.905
Beta	0.948	1.197	1.069	0.855	0.927	1.075	0.901	1.021	1.353	0.816	1.185	0.799	1.012
													1.014

The values of GFPC and SFPC are the correction of the data transfer error. “SFPC Corrected” shows the new results for SFPC after re analysis of the 5 Subjects with the corrected analysis pipeline.

We corrected this mistake in the analysis script and reanalyzed the 5 Subjects. While this affected the individual frequency power time courses, it did not result in a more stable correlation with the RSN timelines. The corrected Figure 5 of this erratum depicts the corrected rank graphs for SFPC, which show only minor differences to the erroneous graphs in the original Figure 5 of the published manuscript. This reflects a similar inter subject and temporal variance independent of the change in dipole location.

Figure 1.

Correction of Figure 5 of the original manuscript, showing only minor differences to the erroneous graphs in the original Figure 5. This reflects a similar inter subject and temporal variance independent of the change in dipole location.

We also noted a lapse in the part of the original Table 1, which shows the variance values for SFPC and GFPC for 5 subjects. This was due to an error in the data transfer between Excel and Word in the final version of the manuscript after the revision process. The corrected Table 1 below shows the corrected values of both GFPC and SFPC analysis.

It is important to note that the corrected results did not impact on our original conclusions of the published manuscript.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.