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
| 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Correction of Table 1 in the original manuscript for GFPC and SFPC.
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
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.
Statements
Conflict of interest
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.
Summary
Keywords
erratum, combined EEG-fMRI, resting state, source modeling, ICA, ECP
Citation
Meyer MC, Janssen RJ, Van Oort ESB, Beckmann CF and Barth M (2014) Corrigendum: The quest for EEG power band correlation with ICA derived fMRI resting state networks. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8:539. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00539
Received
24 June 2014
Accepted
01 July 2014
Published
02 September 2014
Volume
8 - 2014
Edited and reviewed by
Jean-Claude Baron, University of Cambridge, UK
Copyright
© 2014 Meyer, Janssen, Van Oort, Beckmann and Barth.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: matthias.meyer@donders.ru.nl
This article was submitted to the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.