Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Publisher Correction: Dissociable roles of cortical excitation-inhibition balance during patch-leaving versus value-guided decisions

The Original Article was published on 10 February 2021

Correction to: Nature Communications https://doi.org/10.1038/S41467-020-20875-W, published online 10 February 2021.

The original version of this Article contained an error in the “Methods” section, under the “Decision-making task” heading. The results of a t test were reported with the incorrect degrees of freedom, incorrectly written as “t18858 = −20.915, p < 0.001.” The correct version replaced “t18858” with “t18558.” This has been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.

The original version of this Article also contained an error in the “Methods” section titled “Behavioural modelling of value-guided decisions” in which Eqs. 5 and 6 inadvertently swapped during production. The incorrect version stated

Since it is known that humans do not weigh magnitudes and probabilities in a statistically optimal way, we considered systematic distortions in the weighting of reward information in our models (u(m) and w(p), for reward magnitudes and probabilities, Eqs. 5 and 6, respectively)56.

$$u(m_{\rm{O}})={m_{\rm{O}}}^{\alpha }$$
(5)

where pO are the objective reward probabilities and γ is a free parameter used to fit subjective reward probabilities. Subjective magnitudes were estimated by:

$$w(p_{\mathrm{O}})={\frac {{p_{\mathrm{O}}}^{\gamma }}{\left({p_{\mathrm{O}}}^{\gamma }+(1-{p_{\mathrm{O}}})^{\gamma }\right)^{1/\gamma }}}$$
(6)

The correct version states

Since it is known that humans do not weigh magnitudes and probabilities in a statistically optimal way, we considered systematic distortions in the weighting of reward information in our models (w(pO) and u(mO) for reward probabilities and magnitudes, Eqs. 5 and 6, respectively)56.

$$w(p_{\mathrm{O}})={\frac {{p_{\mathrm{O}}}^{\gamma }}{\left({p_{\mathrm{O}}}^{\gamma }+(1-{p_{\mathrm{O}}})^{\gamma }\right)^{1/\gamma }}}$$
(5)

where pO are the objective reward probabilities and γ is a free parameter used to fit subjective reward probabilities. Subjective magnitudes were estimated by:

$$u(m_{\rm{O}})={m_{\rm{O}}}^\alpha$$
(6)

The original version of this Article also contained an error in the Methods section under the heading “MRS data acquisition”, in which the terms “rM1 and lM1” were incorrectly ordered. The incorrect version stated

Average M1 voxel centroids in standard space were estimated at MNI x = −28.97 ± 0.82, y = −18.48 ± 0.92, z = 51.86 ± 0.59 and MNI x = 31.90 ± 0.71, y = −14.76 ± 1.06, z = 49.76 ± 0.88 for rM1 and lM1, respectively.

The correct version states

Average M1 voxel centroids in standard space were estimated at MNI x = −28.97 ± 0.82, y = −18.48 ± 0.92, z = 51.86 ± 0.59 and MNI x = 31.90 ± 0.71, y = −14.76 ± 1.06, z = 49.76 ± 0.88 for lM1 and rM1, respectively.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca F. Kaiser.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaiser, L.F., Gruendler, T.O.J., Speck, O. et al. Publisher Correction: Dissociable roles of cortical excitation-inhibition balance during patch-leaving versus value-guided decisions. Nat Commun 12, 3901 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23485-2

Download citation

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing