Correction to: Corticospinal excitability is altered similarly following concentric and eccentric maximal contractions

Correction to: European Journal of Applied Physiology (2020) 120:1457–1469 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-020-04377-7

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The correct information is given below.

In Fig. 2, the torque loss corresponding to CON_W is not 14.5 ± 14.5 but 36.9 ± 14.5. More torque is thus lost in this condition than in ECC_F. The corrected Fig. 2 is given in the following page.

In the “Results” section, the last sentence of the following section “Fatigue during the dynamic exercise” should read:

Dynamic peak torque loss was more pronounced in CON than ECC for the completion of the same work. It was 15.0 ± 14.6% superior in CONW than ECCF (P = 0.02; dz = 1.02), and 13.4 ± 7.0% superior in CONF than ECCW (P < 0.001; dz = 1.92).

Fig. 2

The panel a shows the decline in dynamic peak torque from the three first to the three last contractions of the exercise. The values are expressed as a percentage of those of the three first contractions of the first set of the same session. Sessions matched for work are illustrated in the same color (grey versus black). The panel b displays the evolution of the torque with knee angle during one maximal knee extension of a typical subject during an ECC and a CON contraction at the beginning and the end of the exercise. Different from the condition matched for work at a given time: ^$means P < 0.05; ^$$means P < 0.01. ECC_F ECC contractions performed until 20% of dynamic torque loss, CON_F CON contraction performed until 20% of dynamic torque loss, ECC_W ECC contractions performed until having completed the same work as in CON_F, CON_W ECC contractions carried-out until having completed the same work as in ECC_F. Work 1 (W1) corresponds to the 10.2 ± 5.3 × 10³ J performed in ECC_F and CON_W, and Work 2 (W2) refers to the 5.8 ± 5.9 × 10³ J completed in CON_F and ECC_W