Erratum to: Preserved grip selection planning in chronic unilateral upper extremity amputees

Abstract

likelihood and awkwardness for controls was −0.857 for the left-hand and −0.886 for the right-hand; for amputees, these correlations reached −0.864 and −0.8932, respectively (P < 0.001 for all four). Note that this strong inverse relationship between grip preferences and awkwardness arises even though we calculated the two measures from different populations (choice likelihoods from amputees and matched controls and awkwardness ratings from naive young participants). More interestingly, despite the absence of movements, grip preferences in PGS also showed a strong negative correlation with rated awkwardness, as shown by previous work with healthy controls (Johnson 2000a). The correlation between PGS choice likelihood and awkwardness for controls was −0.628 for the left-hand (P < .05) and −0.711 for the right-hand (P < .01); for amputees, these correlations reached −0.770 (P < .01) and −0.768 (P < .01), respectively. Figure 4 illustrates this by demonstrating the relationship between awkwardness, control choice likelihoods, and amputee choice likelihoods, for the affected hand in the PGS task. Recall that a control participant’s “affected” hand was determined by matching with their yoked amputee participant. Notably, Fig. 4 also illustrates the match between grip selections in amputees and controls. Group mean choice likelihoods were nearly identical between the two groups (left-hand r = 0.973, P < 0.0001; right-hand r = 0.993, P < 0.0001). This demonstrates that amputees and controls show similar patterns of orientation sensitivity in their grip selections.