Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Correction

Correction: McMurray et al., Brain Stimulation Reward Supports More Consistent and Accurate Rodent Decision-Making than Food Reward (eNeuro March/April 2017, 4(2) e0015-17.2017 1-13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0015-17.2017)

eNeuro 15 August 2017, 4 (4) ENEURO.0265-17.2017; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0265-17.2017
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

In the article “Brain Stimulation Reward Supports More Consistent and Accurate Rodent Decision-Making than Food Reward,” by Matthew S. McMurray, Sineadh M. Conway, and Jamie D. Roitman, which appeared on e0015-17.2017 of the April 18, 2017, issue, there was a mislabeled axis on Figure 3D, which led to an inaccuracy in the figure caption and statistical table (Table 1). The y-axis of this figure was mistakenly labeled “Preference for Larger Reward” but should have been labeled “Number of Trials Completed.” This error propagated to the figure caption and statistical table but does not affect any of the conclusions or interpretations in our article. Figure 3 and associated caption and statistical Table 1 have been corrected on the online PDF version and are displayed below.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Statistical tests and values

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Results from the sugar pellet magnitude discrimination task. In all panels, a indicates significant difference from chance responding (50% preference, p < 0.001). A, Relationship between the difference in reward size (pellet number) and the animals’ preference for the larger reward. b indicates significant difference from one pellet (p < 0.01), and c indicates significant difference from two pellets (p < 0.05). B, Preference for the larger reward at each possible reward comparison. Statistical comparisons were made only within comparison groups (e.g., within one-pellet difference). d indicates significant difference from one-versus-two comparison (p < 0.05). C, Number of trials completed in each comparison. Statistical comparisons were made only within comparison groups (e.g., within one pellet difference). d indicates significant difference from one-versus-two comparison (p < 0.01). D, Relationship between the average total number of sugar pellets earned in each comparison and the number of trials the animal completed. Dotted line denotes significant correlation between these values (R2 = 0.998, p < 0.0001). E, Preference for the larger reward over the course of the average session (time normalized across sessions), at each difference in reward size. Dotted line illustrates the mean of all comparisons, and significance is denoted only for this mean (there was no significant effect of comparison). e, f, and g denote significant difference from bins 0–0.1, 0.1–0.2, and 0.2–0.3, respectively (all p < 0.001). F, Trial completion rate over the course of the average session (time normalized across sessions), at each level of proportionate difference in reward size. Dotted line illustrates the mean of all comparisons, and significance is denoted only for this mean (there was no significant effect of comparison). e, f, and g denote significant difference from bins 0–0.1, 0.1–0.2, and 0.2–0.3, respectively (all p < 0.001).

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 4 (4)
eNeuro
Vol. 4, Issue 4
July/August 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Correction: McMurray et al., Brain Stimulation Reward Supports More Consistent and Accurate Rodent Decision-Making than Food Reward (eNeuro March/April 2017, 4(2) e0015-17.2017 1-13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0015-17.2017)
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Correction: McMurray et al., Brain Stimulation Reward Supports More Consistent and Accurate Rodent Decision-Making than Food Reward (eNeuro March/April 2017, 4(2) e0015-17.2017 1-13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0015-17.2017)
eNeuro 15 August 2017, 4 (4) ENEURO.0265-17.2017; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0265-17.2017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article

Share
Correction: McMurray et al., Brain Stimulation Reward Supports More Consistent and Accurate Rodent Decision-Making than Food Reward (eNeuro March/April 2017, 4(2) e0015-17.2017 1-13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0015-17.2017)
eNeuro 15 August 2017, 4 (4) ENEURO.0265-17.2017; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0265-17.2017
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Erratum: Iemi and Busch, Moment-to-Moment Fluctuations in Neuronal Excitability Bias Subjective Perception Rather than Strategic Decision-Making (eNeuro May/June 2018, 5(3) e0430-17.2018 1-13 https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0430-17.2018)
  • Correction: Jiang et al., NCS-Rapgef2, the Protein Product of the Neuronal Rapgef2 Gene, Is a Specific Activator of D1 Dopamine Receptor-Dependent ERK Phosphorylation in Mouse Brain (eNeuro September/October 2017, 4(5) e0248-17.2017 1-17 https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0248-17.2017)
  • Correction: McDonald et al., Alterations in Cytosolic and Mitochondrial [U-13C]Glucose Metabolism in a Chronic Epilepsy Mouse Model (eNeuro November/December 2017, 4(1) e0341-16.2017 1-11 https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0341-16.2017)
Show more Correction
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.