Corrigendum to “Frontal alpha asymmetry moderates the relations between behavioral inhibition and social-effect ERN” [Biological Psychology (2019) 10–16] (Biological Psychology (2019) 141 (10–16), (S0301051118304526), (10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.12.014))
Other Scholarly Work
Harrewijn, A, Buzzell, GA, Debnath, R et al. (2021). Corrigendum to “Frontal alpha asymmetry moderates the relations between behavioral inhibition and social-effect ERN” [Biological Psychology (2019) 10–16] (Biological Psychology (2019) 141 (10–16), (S0301051118304526), (10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.12.014))
. BIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 161 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2021.108078
The authors regret that we identified an error in one of the scripts used to process the event-related potential (ERP) data in the original manuscript (Buzzell et al., 2017). A typo in one of the MATLAB scripts causes one of the seven electrodes going into the error-related negativity (ERN) ERP cluster to be from an incorrect scalp location (computing the cluster relies on indexing into a matrix and one of the indices were off by a value of 1). This mistake ultimately impacts the “social-effect ERN” variable described in the original manuscript. Given that only one of the 7 electrodes in the cluster was wrong, after correcting this error, the original and corrected social-effect-ERN variables—for the sample used in this paper—correlate highly (n = 100, r = .972, p < .001). Similarly, after re-running all analyses using the corrected variable, we find that none of the statistical tests of interest changed from being significant to non-significant (or vice versa). Thus, no interpretations or conclusions drawn from the manuscript change as a result of correcting this error. Nonetheless, given that some of the values appearing in the original text of the paper in Biological Psychology might be used in future meta-analyses, we provide here a detailed report of any nominal changes in the values reported. Note that the constant (intercept) terms for two of the regression models are also now significant, arising from a change in the overall mean value for the corrected social-effect-ERN variable; however, no effects of interest in these models, or any other models for this manuscript, change in their significance. Changes to the originally published article are listed below in red font: Corrections to values reported in the main text and supplement 1. In the main text, the Social-effect-ERN values in Table 1 should read: M = -0.46; SD = 1.87; Range = −4.88—4.64; Correlation with frontal alpha asymmetry = 0.12. 2. In the main text, Table 3 should appear as below. Table 3 [Table presented] Note: R2 = 0.08 for Step 1, R2 = 0.11 for Step 2, R2 = 0.16 for Step 3, Δ R2 = 0.05 for Step 3 (p = 0.024). *p < 0.05 *Note that the constant (intercept) terms for the models in steps 2 and 3 are now significant, arising from a change in the overall mean value for the corrected social-effect-ERN variable. However, no effects of interest in these models, or any other models for this manuscript, change in their significance. 3. In the main text, page 14, section 3.2, 1st paragraph, lines 3–15 should read: “Neither frontal alpha asymmetry nor BI predicted the social-effect ERN. Interestingly, there was an interaction between frontal alpha asymmetry and BI in predicting the social-effect ERN, β = 0.22, p = 0.02 (Table 3). Follow-up regression analysis for children with high and low BI separately (median split), showed that frontal alpha asymmetry predicts the social-effect ERN for children with high BI, β = 0.27, p = 0.06, but not for children with low BI, β = −0.17, p = 0.25 (Fig. 4). In children with high BI, more right frontal activity is related to a larger ERN in the social condition compared to the non-social condition. The interaction between frontal alpha asymmetry and BI was not statistically significant for the ERN in the social and non-social conditions separately, ps > 0.43, showing that the effect is specific for the social-effect ERN.” 4 In the main text, the ERP traces in Fig. 3 should appear as follows: [Figure presented] 5 In the main text, Fig. 4 should appear as follows: [Figure presented] 6 Within the supplement, page 1, paragraph 1, lines 10–12 should read: “There was no effect of order, β = -0.08, p = 0.40, and the interaction between BI and frontal alpha asymmetry still predicted the social-effect ERN, β = 0.23, p = 0.02.″ 7 Within the supplement, page 2, paragraph 2, lines 5–10 should read: “Left frontal delta-beta correlation did not predict the social-effect ERN, β = 0.19, p = 0.06, and there was no interaction between BI and left frontal delta-beta correlation in predicting the social-effect ERN, β = −0.19, p = 0.38. Right frontal delta-beta correlation also did not predict the social-effect ERN, β = 0.09, p = 0.38, and there was no interaction between BI and right frontal delta-beta correlation in predicting the social-effect ERN, β = −0.08, p = 0.67.” Please note that this is an author-initiated corrigendum to correct the scientific record, in line with the principles of open science and to ensure the validity of any future meta-analytic work based on this manuscript. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
