Correction to: Minimally conscious state “plus”: diagnostic criteria and relation to functional recovery (Journal of Neurology, (2020), 267, 5, (1245-1254), 10.1007/s00415-019-09628-y)

Following electronic publication of the above-referenced manuscript, we discovered that one of the three criteria we proposed to establish command-following in the MCS+ syndrome was inadvertently omitted in some parts of the manuscript. Specifically, "object recognition" was omitted from the criteria used to diagnose MCS+. We operationally define command-following as a Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) Auditory Subscale score of 3 (i.e. reproducible command-following: A3) or 4 (i.e. consistent commandfollowing: A4), or a Visual Subscale score of 5 (i.e. object recognition: V5). However, in Tables 1 and 2 and Figs. 2 and 3, we failed to include object recognition as a criterion for MCS+. In addition, in Fig. 4 (CRS-R Face Sheet), object recognition is not labeled as a criterion for MCS+. Therefore, we would like to highlight the corrected parts of our manuscript to clarify that the criteria for "command-following" include object recognition (V5) as well as reproducible (A3) and consistent (A4) command-following. Please note that these modifications do not change any of the findings of the study. Please find the individual corrections here: In the section “Methods” the paragraph “consistent command following” needs to be replaced by: Command following: At least three clearly-discernible behavioral responses are observed over four consecutive trials on at least one of two commands. Note that this definition also includes object recognition. At the end of the “Procedures” paragraph, the following text needs to be added before Table 1. Note that we did not include “attention” from the Arousal Subscale as a criterion for MCS+ because all responses, regardless of accuracy, are considered when scoring this item. This item can be scored even in the absence of intact language function. For example, a patient with aphasia who does not comprehend language but understands that a response is anticipated may meet the required criteria. At the end of the section “Results” the word “lower” needs to be replaced by “higher”: The MCS- group had significantly higher (i.e., worse) DRS scores than all other groups (all p values < 0.05—supplementary Fig. S3). Please find the corrected Figs. 2, 3 and 4, as well as supplemental Fig. 3, on the following page:(Figure presented.), (Table presented.). © 2020, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.