 |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Correction for Spierer et al.,J. Neurosci. 27 (20) 5474-5483.
The Journal of Neuroscience, June 27, 2007, 27(26)
Previous Article | Next Article
Corrections
Correction for Spierer et al., Learning-Induced Plasticity in Auditory Spatial Representations Revealed by Electrical NeuroimagingIn the article "Learning-Induced Plasticity in Auditory Spatial Representations Revealed by Electrical Neuroimaging" by Lucas Spierer, Eric Tardif, Holger Sperdin, Micah Murray, and Stephanie Clarke, which appeared on pages 5474–5483 of the May 16, 2007 issue, an error was identified in the manner in which colors were described for Figure 4. In the legend for Figure 4, the description of panel c should read "c, Over the 252-299 ms poststimulus period, different maps again described AEPs in response to the R500 and R385 conditions during the post-training but not pretraining session (framed in blue and red)." In addition, the first full paragraph on page 5479 should read "Over the 252–299 ms poststimulus period, different maps described AEPs in response to the R500 and R385 conditions during the post-training but not pretraining session. These maps are framed in blue and red, respectively, in Figure 4a. The global dissimilarity between these maps is 0.469. After the fitting procedure, analysis of map presence over this period revealed significant interactions between session and map (F(1,9) = 5.17; p = 0.049) and between stimulus lateralization and map (F(1,9) = 8.15; p = 0.019). Additional ANOVAs were therefore conducted for each session, separately. For the pretraining session, there was a main effect of map (F(1,9) = 5.33; p = 0.046). Neither the main effect of stimulus lateralization nor the interaction between factors reached the 0.05 significance criterion. This pattern of results indicates that the map framed in red predominated responses during the pretraining session (Fig. 4c, bar graphs). For the post-training, there was a significant interaction between stimulus lateralization and map (F(1,9) = 9.77; p = 0.012), whereas neither main effect reached our 0.05 significance criterion. Similar to the effects over the 195-250 ms interval, this pattern indicates that during the post-training session, the map framed in blue predominated responses to the R500 lateralization, whereas the map framed in red predominated responses to the R385 lateralizaiton (Fig. 4c, bar graphs)."
This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager 
Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content
|
|
|
|
 |
|