In the original article, there was a mistake in the legend for Figure 5(C) and Figure 6(D) as published. It should be “iTBS600×3*30,” but it was written incorrectly to “iTBS×3*10.” The correct legend appears below.
Figure 5. Individual response to iTBS after 1800 pulses stimulation in three different intervals. (A) iTBS1800 (B) iTBS600 × 3*10 (C) iTBS600 × 3*30.
Figure 6. The percentage of subjects that responded to different iTBS conditions. (A) one blocks of iTBS (B) iTBS1800 (C) iTBS600 × 3*10 (D) iTBS600 × 3*30.
In the original article, there was a mistake in Table 2 as published. The corrected Table 2 appears below. The SI1mv data for iTBS600×3*10 was incorrectly filled in as 198.2.
Table 2.
Subjects' baseline RMT, MEP amplitude, SI1mv, and LICI when started three different iTBS conditions.
| iTBS1800 (N = 16) | iTBS600 × 3*10 (N = 16) | iTBS600 × 3*30 (N = 16) | F | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMT (%MSO) | 39.69 ± 15.99 | 40.31 ± 14.70 | 40.38 ± 14.45 | 0.010 | 0.990 |
| MEP (mV) | 1.03 ± 0.23 | 1.22 ± 0.43 | 1.14 ± 0.35 | 1.272 | 0.290 |
| SI1mv (%MSO) | 50.8 ± 20.05 | 51.88 ± 19.82 | 52.25 ± 17.19 | 0.025 | 0.975 |
| LICI | 0.37 ± 0.46 | 0.22 ± 0.35 | 0.24 ± 0.41 | 0.662 | 0.521 |
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.