In the article “Different Roles for Amygdala Central Nucleus and Substantia Innominata in the Surprise-Induced Enhancement of Learning,” by Peter C. Holland and Michela Gallagher, which appeared on pages 3791–3797 of the April 5, 2006 issue, panels B and D of Figure 2 were reversed. The correct figure and legend are reprinted here.
Behavioral data from the test phase of experiments 1–4. The left side of each panel shows the acquisition of food cup CRs over the course of the test phase, and the right side of each panel shows the mean (±SEM) responding over the entire test phase. The target of the lesions and cannulas was the CeA in experiments 1 and 2 (A, B) and the SI/nBM in experiments 3 and 4 (C, D). The rats in the NBQX subgroups received infusions of NBQX during either the phase 2 surprise treatment (experiments 1 and 3; A, C) or the test phase (experiments 2 and 4; B, D); the rats in the vehicle-only (Veh) subgroups received infusions of vehicle alone in those phases. Surprise-induced enhancements in cue associability are reflected in greater responding in the surprise group than in the consistent (Cons) group. Vehicle-only rats showed significant surprise-induced enhancement of learning in all four experiments. This enhancement was eliminated by infusions of NBQX into the CeA during the surprise phase but not the test phase and by infusions of NBQX into the SI/nBM during the test phase but not the surprise phase.
