A mistake regarding the exemplary weights given in Table 4 of our original publication was recently brought to our attention. We corrected the weights and give the complete and updated table in this commentary.
Table 4
| Deck | Long-term outcome (x1) | Gain frequency (x2) | Loss frequency (x3) | Choices [%] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | −0.86 | −0.86 | −1.47 | 0.15 |
| B | −0.86 | 0.86 | 0.34 | 0.50 |
| C | 0.86 | −0.86 | 0.79 | 0.10 |
| D | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.34 | 0.25 |
| Weights | −0.145 | 0.110 | 0.089 |
(corrected): Example (one subject's) least squares solution of the linear equation model for mean choices in block 5.
Summary
Keywords
Iowa GamblingTask, gain frequency, loss frequency, Reward, linear equation model
Citation
Horstmann A, Villringer A and Neumann J (2013) Corrigendum: Iowa gambling task: there is more to consider than long-term outcome. Using a linear equation model to disentangle the impact of outcome and frequency of gains and losses. Front. Neurosci. 7:90. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2013.00090
Received
23 April 2013
Accepted
14 May 2013
Published
04 June 2013
Volume
7 - 2013
Edited by
Björn Brembs, University of Regensburg, Germany
Copyright
© 2013 Horstmann, Villringer and Neumann.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited and subject to any copyright notices concerning any third-party graphics etc.
*Correspondence: e-mail: horstmann@cbs.mpg.de
This article was submitted to Frontiers in Decision Neuroscience, a specialty of Frontiers in Neuroscience.
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.