Correction to: Experimental Brain Research (2020) 238:601–620 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-020-05733-x

In the original publication of the article, Fig. 3 was incorrect. The issue relates to the reporting of variance estimates associated with a single panel of Fig. 3. The correct Fig. 3 and values are given below:

Fig. 3
figure 1

a Single subject data (19-year-old male) demonstrating the relationship between the RMS average and the evoked response. The variance peak and post-response inhibition are shown across the array of left-sided electrodes following right mastoid stimulation using positive polarity BC impulses. The variance peak and periods of inhibition were greater in electrode locations which produced largest evoked responses during mapping. In this subject, a prominent inverted response can be seen in the SPL1 electrode. Values on the RMS averages indicate prestimulus baseline levels which were used to calculate the percentage increase (variance peak) or decrease (post-response inhibition) in each subject. b Both the magnitude of the variance peak and inhibition demonstrated positive correlations with the size of the evoked response for both positively (black) and negatively (grey) directed BC impulses. The duration of inhibition was strongly correlated with the evoked response for positive polarity BC impulses. c Grand mean traces (n = 10) that superimpose the evoked response on the RMS average for the CBz−3 electrode site. Similar averages were also observed for the Iz−3, Iz−6 and CBz−6 sites. The initial biphasic evoked response corresponded with the variance peak whereas the period of inhibition corresponded to the slow wave decrease following the initial evoked response. Both positive (black) and negative (grey) polarities demonstrated this relationship

Full size image

The average size of the preceding peak of variance as a % increase from baseline levels was 28.9 ± 23.0% [2.3–82.9%] for positive polarity BC impulses and 19.2 ± 17.8% [0–57.6%] for negative polarity BC impulses. For both stimulus polarities, strong positive correlations were shown between the size of the evoked response and the variance peak (P12–N17 response: r = 0.561, P20-N26 response: r = 0.744, P < 0.001 for both) (Fig. 3b).