Correction to: Spinal Cord 57:49–57;

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-018-0190-z;

published online 11 September 2018

In the original version of the article the authors incorrectly stated that: “One case study provided evidence of some improvements in motor performance and spasticity [19], while several other studies only provided evidence on the feasibility of UER as an assessment tool; however, the fact that the manufacturer funded these studies lessens their objectivity [15, 20–24].” This is not correct as the manufacturers did not fund the studies. The correct phrase therefore should have read: “One case study provided evidence of some improvements in motor performance and spasticity [19], while several other studies provided evidence focusing more on the feasibility of UER rather than the clinical efficacy [15, 20–24].” The authors would like to apologise for this error.

This has been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.