After publication of our paper “Causal Contributions of the Domain-General (Multiple Demand) and the Language-Selective Brain Networks to Perceptual and Semantic Challenges in Speech Comprehension” (https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00081), we discovered an error in Table 1. Specifically, in the two right-most columns, values with more than one digit are missing the first digit. Please see the corrected table below.

Table 1. 

Participant profiles, including initial group assignment, demographics, lesion details, IQ based on the NART, and TROG2 scores.

ParticipantGroupAge at testSexLesion aetiologyLesion locationPremorbid IQ (from NART)TROG2 ScoreTotal lesion volume (cm3)
lang1 LANG 50 F Tumour L posterior temporal, posterior corpus callosum, posterior cingulum 108 14 29.49 
lang2 LANG 75 F Stroke (ischaemic) L frontal and anterior insular cortex 86 8 64.06 
lang3 LANG 58 F Stroke (haemorrhagic) R frontotemporoparietal and anterior thalamus 123 18 139.70 
lang4 LANG 65 F Tumour L temporal 117 16 21.90 
lang5 LANG 50 M Other (abscess removal) L temporal 101 14 19.71 
lang6 LANG 56 M Tumour R inferior parietal/temporal 112 12 42.38 
md1 MD 58 M Stroke (ischaemic) L occipitoparietal 97 15 78.21 
md2 MD 63 F Tumour L superior parietal lobe 123 17 37.06 
md3 MD 64 M Other (unknown) R frontotemporoparietal surrounding insular cortex. Anterior branch of internal capsule 115 15 68.59 
md4 MD 53 F Tumour R superior frontal 106 14 114.68 
md5 MD 69 M Stroke (haemorrhagic) L frontal 101 4 113.15 
md6a MD 61 M Tumour + Stroke (haemorrhagic) R posterior frontal and some anterior/medial, extending to post-central gyrus/parietal areas 123 13 131.27 
md7 MD 52 F Tumour Bifrontal 112 16 59.02 
md8 MD 74 M Tumour R frontal 120 16 27.68 
md9 MD 67 M Tumour L anterior frontal 126 18 24.05 
md10b MD 81 M Stroke (haemorrhagic) L temporooccipital 81 14 13.26 
other1 OTHER 58 M Other (resection for epilepsy) R temporal NA 16 17.84 
other2 OTHER 60 M Stroke (haemorrhagic) R basal ganglia (putamen + caudate + thalamus) and internal capsule dorsal anterior insula 97 17 25.37 
other3 OTHER 37 F Stroke (haemorrhagic) L frontal 105 15 12.52 
ParticipantGroupAge at testSexLesion aetiologyLesion locationPremorbid IQ (from NART)TROG2 ScoreTotal lesion volume (cm3)
lang1 LANG 50 F Tumour L posterior temporal, posterior corpus callosum, posterior cingulum 108 14 29.49 
lang2 LANG 75 F Stroke (ischaemic) L frontal and anterior insular cortex 86 8 64.06 
lang3 LANG 58 F Stroke (haemorrhagic) R frontotemporoparietal and anterior thalamus 123 18 139.70 
lang4 LANG 65 F Tumour L temporal 117 16 21.90 
lang5 LANG 50 M Other (abscess removal) L temporal 101 14 19.71 
lang6 LANG 56 M Tumour R inferior parietal/temporal 112 12 42.38 
md1 MD 58 M Stroke (ischaemic) L occipitoparietal 97 15 78.21 
md2 MD 63 F Tumour L superior parietal lobe 123 17 37.06 
md3 MD 64 M Other (unknown) R frontotemporoparietal surrounding insular cortex. Anterior branch of internal capsule 115 15 68.59 
md4 MD 53 F Tumour R superior frontal 106 14 114.68 
md5 MD 69 M Stroke (haemorrhagic) L frontal 101 4 113.15 
md6a MD 61 M Tumour + Stroke (haemorrhagic) R posterior frontal and some anterior/medial, extending to post-central gyrus/parietal areas 123 13 131.27 
md7 MD 52 F Tumour Bifrontal 112 16 59.02 
md8 MD 74 M Tumour R frontal 120 16 27.68 
md9 MD 67 M Tumour L anterior frontal 126 18 24.05 
md10b MD 81 M Stroke (haemorrhagic) L temporooccipital 81 14 13.26 
other1 OTHER 58 M Other (resection for epilepsy) R temporal NA 16 17.84 
other2 OTHER 60 M Stroke (haemorrhagic) R basal ganglia (putamen + caudate + thalamus) and internal capsule dorsal anterior insula 97 17 25.37 
other3 OTHER 37 F Stroke (haemorrhagic) L frontal 105 15 12.52 

Note. NART = National Adult Reading Test (Nelson, 1982); TROG2 = Test of Reception of Grammar (Bishop, 2003); lang/LANG = language; md/MD = multiple demand; L = left; R = right.

a

Participant md6 was excluded from the degraded speech task analyses.

b

Participant md10 was excluded from the semantic ambiguity task analyses.

View Large

The authors confirm that there are no mistakes in the analysis; the error is in the values presented in the table and occurred after acceptance.

View Original Article
© 2023 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
2023
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For a full description of the license, please visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.