Correction to: Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-021-85236-z, published online 02 April 2021
The original version of this Article contained an error in the legend of Figure 4, where the minus sign was missing in the P values.
“Differences between low-stimulus and high-stimulus groups. (A) Densities of Alpha (relative alpha power) for low-stimulus and high-stimulus groups shows 1.23 × difference in means with P < 2.9E04 (K–S test). (B) Densities for Ea (peak alpha energy) shows 4.8 × difference in means with P < 3.9E05 (K–S test). (C) Densities for CV_Alpha shows 3.5 × difference in means with P < 5.8E04 (K–S test). (D) Densities for Theta/Beta ratio shows 1.13 × difference in means (here decrease, P < 5.4E05 (K–S test). (E) Densities for Complexity shows 1.17 × difference in means with P < 7.5E05 (K–S test). (F) Average power spectrums of low- and high- stimulus groups. Error bars: average spatial variability across individuals.”
now reads:
“Differences between low-stimulus and high-stimulus groups. (A) Densities of Alpha (relative alpha power) for low-stimulus and high-stimulus groups shows 1.23 × difference in means with P < 2.9E-04 (K–S test). (B) Densities for Ea (peak alpha energy) shows 4.8 × difference in means with P < 3.9E-05 (K–S test). (C) Densities for CV_Alpha shows 3.5 × difference in means with P < 5.8E-04 (K–S test). (D) Densities for Theta/Beta ratio shows 1.13 × difference in means (here decrease, P < 5.4E-05 (K–S test). (E) Densities for Complexity shows 1.17 × difference in means with P < 7.5E-05 (K–S test). (F) Average power spectrums of low- and high- stimulus groups. Error bars: average spatial variability across individuals.”
The original Article has been corrected.