Correction: On the role of visual feedback and physiotherapist-patient interaction in robot-assisted gait training: an eye-tracking and HD-EEG study

Correction: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation (2024) 21:211 https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12984-024-01504-9

In this article [1], Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were wrongly numbered. Figure 3 should have been Fig. 4; Fig. 4 should have been Fig. 5; Fig. 5 should have been Fig. 6 and Fig. 6 should have been Fig. 3. The correct version of the Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6 with appropriate caption are shown below. The original article has been corrected .

Fig. 3

Pie charts reporting the distribution of the number of fixations (related to SINGLE-FB session) across the three AoIs for each FB type and Pht-Pt interaction level

Fig. 4

Boxplots reporting results of MANOVA univariate test related to the FB within factor for the ET metrics total duration of fixations (a) and number of fixations (b) computed in the three AoIs and extracted from SINGLE-FB session. The symbol (*) indicates statistically significant differences between different levels of FB factor as revealed by Tukey’s post-hoc test (p < 0.05)

Fig. 5

Boxplots reporting results of MANOVA univariate test related to the FB within factor for time to exit saccade metric in monitor AoI (a) and for the time to first fixation metric in Pht and surrounding AoIs (b), both extracted from SINGLE-FB session. The symbol (*) indicates statistically significant differences between different levels of FB factor as revealed by Tukey’s post-hoc test (p < 0.05)

Fig. 6

Boxplots reporting results of MANOVA univariate test related to the FBxIL interaction factor for the ET metrics total duration of fixations in Pht (a) and surrounding (b) AoIs. The symbol (*) indicates statistically significant differences between different levels of FB and IL factors as revealed by Tukey’s post-hoc test (p < 0.05)