Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Correction

Correction: Thürling et al., “Cerebellar Cortex and Cerebellar Nuclei Are Concomitantly Activated during Eyeblink Conditioning: A 7T fMRI Study in Humans”

Journal of Neuroscience 4 October 2017, 37 (40) 9795-9798; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2133-17.2017
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

In the article, “Cerebellar Cortex and Cerebellar Nuclei Are Concomitantly Activated during Eyeblink Conditioning: A 7T fMRI Study in Humans” by Markus Thürling, Fabian Kahl, Stefan Maderwald, Roxana M. Stefanescu, Marc Schlamann, Henk-Jan Boele, Chris I. De Zeeuw, Jörn Diedrichsen, Mark E. Ladd, Sebastiaan K. E. Koekkoek, and Dagmar Timmann, which appeared on pages 1228–1239 of the January 21, 2015 issue, the fourth author name is incorrect. Stefanescu RM (Roxana M. Stefanescu) should read Stefanescu MR (Maria R. Stefanescu). The corrected author list is as follows: Markus Thürling, Fabian Kahl, Stefan Maderwald, Maria R. Stefanescu, Marc Schlamann, Henk-Jan Boele, Chris I. De Zeeuw, Jörn Diedrichsen, Mark E. Ladd, Sebastiaan K. E. Koekkoek, and Dagmar Timmann. The fourth author name has been corrected in the online PDF version.

In addition, reanalysis of the original dataset revealed that incorrect data files had been selected to perform the analysis of conditioned response (CR) acquisition presented in Figure 5 and the corresponding Tables 2 and 5. Repeated-measures ANOVA had been applied to assess the effect of time across the five blocks of paired conditioned stimulus (CS)–unconditioned stimulus (US) trials (20 trials per block). The original, faulty data analysis suggested a significant change in fMRI signal across the acquisition phase with an initial increase and subsequent decrease (original Fig. 5c,d). Re-analysis of the dataset using the correct data files revealed no significant change of fMRI signal across acquisition blocks (i.e., no significant effect of time). Therefore, the results shown in the original Figure 5 and the corresponding Tables 2 and 5 are no longer valid. Re-analysis showed a main effect of acquisition versus rest in cerebellar cortical and nuclei areas known to contribute to CR acquisition [i.e., lobules VI with extension into Crus I and II and additional activation in lobules VIIb and VIII; interposed nuclei with additional activations in the dentate nuclei (see corrected Fig. 5 and Tables 2 and 5)]. The extension and the numbers of clusters were different compared with the original, faulty data analysis, but the main locations remained the same. Because the main effect of acquisition in paired CS–US trials does not allow differentiation between activations related to the CR and unconditioned response, additional analysis was performed considering interspersed CS-only trials (five blocks of CS-only trials, five trials per block). Again, no significant change of fMRI signal was observed across blocks. The main effect of acquisition versus rest showed a similar pattern of activation as in paired trials (see corrected Fig. 5b,d and Tables 2 and 5). In addition, mean β values were assessed in two volumes of interest (VOIs), the right lobule VI and the interposed nucleus. VOIs were chosen based on the animal eyeblink conditioning literature. Mean β values were already high in the first acquisition block, both in the cerebellar cortex and the cerebellar nuclei (see mean β values in corrected Fig. 5). fMRI signal showed no significant change across the five acquisition blocks in either the cerebellar cortex or in the cerebellar nuclei blocks (all p > 0.6, repeated-measures ANOVA). This was the case considering the paired CS–US trials and, more importantly, considering the CS-only trials (see corrected Fig. 5b,d). We were able to replicate this finding in a follow-up study using the same experimental setup in a new group of participants (see Fig. 5 in Ernst et al., 2017). Similar to the present findings, the fMRI signal was found to increase in parallel within the cerebellar cortex and nuclei during CR acquisition. This increase was present already in the first acquisition block. Because neither the re-analysis nor the follow-up study revealed significant changes across time, results of main effects of acquisition phase based on one-sample t tests are reported instead. The corrected Figure 5, Table 2, and Table 5 are provided above. Note that the main finding of the paper, concomitant activation of the cerebellar cortex and nuclei during initial acquisition of the classically conditioned eyeblink responses, remains the same.

Figure 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5.

Cerebellar cortical (a, b) and nuclear (c, d) activations against rest in the acquisition phase and the corresponding mean β values over blocks of 20 paired CS–US trials (a, c) and five CS-only trials (b, d), respectively. The respective blocks were modeled individually in the first-level analysis. Activations were calculated using a one-sample t test over first-level contrasts spanning all five acquisition blocks against rest. Results are thresholded at the level of p < 0.05 (permutation corrected) for paired CS–US trials and for CS-only trials at a trend level (b: p < 0.001; d: p < 0.01 uncorrected). t-maps are mapped onto coronal slices of the SUIT maximum probability template (Diedrichsen et al., 2009) and the newly developed dentate and interposed template. Mean β values (±SEM) are given for VOI of the right lobule VI and right interposed nuclei, respectively. ANOVA with repeated measures showed no significant block effects (all p > 0.6). L, Left; R, Right; y, z, SUIT coordinates (in millimeters); Roman numerals, cerebellar lobules; D, dentate; I, interposed.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Activity in cerebellar cortex during the acquisition phase

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5.

Activity in cerebellar nuclei during the acquisition phase

Details on the second-level fMRI analysis

In the original data analysis, individual (first-level) evaluation was modeled as five blocks of 20 paired CS–US trials. Contrasts against rest were generated for each individual block. In the second-level analysis, the five paired trial blocks were compared using a within-subject ANOVA and tested for significant changes across time, or the “block effect.” The F contrast vector (SPM notation) is as follows: [1 −1 0 0 0;0 1 −1 0 0; 0 0 1 −1 0; 0 0 0 1 −1]. An error occurred in the selection of the first-level contrasts for block 3, leading to a strong overestimation of these contrasts' β values. A strong time effect was falsely detected. After replacement of block 3 with the correct block, within-subject ANOVA revealed no significant time (i.e., block) effects.

In the re-analysis, acquisition phase was modeled as five blocks of 20 paired CS–US trials and five blocks of five CS-only trials in first level. Again, a within-subject ANOVA as described above showed significant effects of time either in paired CS–US trials or in CS-only trials. We additionally generated first-level contrasts against rest considering all five blocks of paired CS–US trials and all five blocks of CS-only trials, respectively. In the second-level evaluation, one-sample t tests were applied for these two sets of first-level contrasts. The results show the main effect of acquisition phase versus rest.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Ernst TM,
    2. Thürling M,
    3. Müller S,
    4. Kahl F,
    5. Maderwald S,
    6. Schlamann M,
    7. Boele HJ,
    8. Koekkoek SKE,
    9. Diedrichsen J,
    10. De Zeeuw CI,
    11. Ladd ME,
    12. Timmann D
    (2017) Modulation of 7 T fMRI signal in the cerebellar cortex and nuclei during acquisition, extinction, and reacquisition of conditioned eyeblink responses. Hum Brain Mapp 38:3957–3974. doi:10.1002/hbm.23641 pmid:28474470
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Diedrichsen J,
    2. Balsters JH,
    3. Flavell J,
    4. Cussans E,
    5. Ramnani N
    (2009) A probabilistic MR atlas of the human cerebellum. Neuroimage 46:39–46. doi:10.1016/s1053-8119(09)71166-8 pmid:19457380
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 37 (40)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 37, Issue 40
4 Oct 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience 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: Thürling et al., “Cerebellar Cortex and Cerebellar Nuclei Are Concomitantly Activated during Eyeblink Conditioning: A 7T fMRI Study in Humans”
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
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: Thürling et al., “Cerebellar Cortex and Cerebellar Nuclei Are Concomitantly Activated during Eyeblink Conditioning: A 7T fMRI Study in Humans”
Journal of Neuroscience 4 October 2017, 37 (40) 9795-9798; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2133-17.2017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Correction: Thürling et al., “Cerebellar Cortex and Cerebellar Nuclei Are Concomitantly Activated during Eyeblink Conditioning: A 7T fMRI Study in Humans”
Journal of Neuroscience 4 October 2017, 37 (40) 9795-9798; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2133-17.2017
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Details on the second-level fMRI analysis
    • References
  • 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

  • Correction: Sequerra, Goyal et al., “NMDA Receptor Signaling Is Important for Neural Tube Formation and for Preventing Antiepileptic Drug-Induced Neural Tube Defects”
  • Correction: Darbelli et al., “Quaking Regulates Neurofascin 155 Expression for Myelin and Axoglial Junction Maintenance”
  • Correction: Personius et al., “Neuromuscular NMDA Receptors Modulate Developmental Synapse Elimination”
Show more CORRECTION
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • 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
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2022 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci 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 JNeurosci.