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 ​Table11 labeled “SFPC variance for 5 subjects.”

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.

Open in a separate window

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 ​Table1,1, 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 ​Table11 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.