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
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

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).

  • Copyright © 2017 the authors
  • 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.