Correction to: Nature Neuroscience https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-0660-4, published online 29 June 2020.
In the version of this article initially published, a number of small errors occurred throughout the text, and several figures were out of order.
Figure 6 should have been Figure 3; Figure 3 should have been Figure 4; Figures 4 and 5 should have been Figs. 5 and 6. Figure citations throughout the text have been updated to reflect this.
In the legend for Fig. 1b, the sentence beginning, “When an effect is present…” the last phrase should read “misses (BF+0 < 1/3, red bars and red percentages) are rare (μ = 0.5) or absent (μ = 1.2 or 2).”
In Fig. 3a, the key for the graph on the right should have read, “Max BF+0: 0.99 at r = 0.0; Wide prior: BF0+ = 4.5; Ultrawide prior: BF0+ = 6.1; User prior: BF0+ = 8.4”. In the legend for Fig. 3a, the second-to-last sentence should read, “As can be seen, there is extreme evidence for H1 in ShockObs, across all but the smallest priors (i.e., the gray, green and cyan dots all have BF+0 > 160), and there is moderate evidence for H0 for all but the smallest priors for CS (most BF0+ > 4.5).” In Fig. 3c, eight instances of BF–0 and BF0– should have been BF+0 and BF0+, respectively.
In the paragraph beginning “The Bayesian approach…” the second sentence before the end of the paragraph should have read “If BF ≈ 1 we have absence of evidence.”
In the paragraph beginning “Fig. 6 applies this logic…”, the sentences beginning “Selecting ‘Compare to...” should have read “Selecting ‘Compare to best model’, as we did in Fig. 6, shows the models with the best model on top, and all other BF10 values can be read as describing how likely that model is compared to the best model. If one selects ‘Compare to null model’, the null model is shown first, and all other BF10 values express likelihood relative to that null model.”
In the paragraph beginning, “Selecting the option ‘Prior…” the first sentence should have referred to dotted and blue lines.
The errors have been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of this article.
About this article
Cite this article
Keysers, C., Gazzola, V. & Wagenmakers, E. Author Correction: Using Bayes factor hypothesis testing in neuroscience to establish evidence of absence. Nat Neurosci (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-00710-7