Reason for Corrigendum:
In the original article there was an error in the beta value reporting the association between left amygdala volume calculated with manual segmentation and family aggression exposure in early life. The correct version of Table 3 appears below.
Table 3
| Segmentation | Structure | β |
|---|---|---|
| FSL | ||
| L.HC | −0.75** | |
| R.HC | −0.48* | |
| L.Amyg | −0.18 | |
| R.Amyg | −0.20 | |
| MANUAL | ||
| L.HC | 0.04 | |
| R.HC | −0.06 | |
| L.Amyg | 0.39+ | |
| R.Amyg | 0.47* | |
| NEUROQUANT | ||
| L.HC | −0.09 | |
| R.HC | −0.13 | |
| L.Amyg | −0.03 | |
| R.Amyg | −0.15 | |
Separate multivariate linear regression analyses of family aggression exposure manual and automated bilateral hippocampal and amygdala segmentations adjusting for age, gender, and total brain volume.
p < 0.05,
p < 0.001,
p = 0.09. L.HC, Left Hippocampus; R.HC, Right Hippocampus, L.Amyg, Left Amygdala; R.Amyg, Right Amygdala. TBV Ratio, Ratio of each segmentation to total gray matter plus white matter. Bold values indicate significant values.
In the “Results” section, sub section “Manual Segmentation,” the second sentence has been added stating the following: A positive relationship between left amygdala volume and family aggression exposure using manual segmentation was approaching significance (b = 0.39, p = 0.09). The authors sincerely apologize for the error. This correlation was not previously mentioned or discussed in the manuscript. Therefore, this error does not change the scientific conclusions of the paper in any way.
Statements
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Summary
Keywords
amygdala, hippocampus, methodology, family aggression, early life stress, adolescence
Citation
Lyden H, Gimbel SI, Del Piero L, Tsai AB, Sachs M, Kaplan JT, Margolin G and Saxbe D (2016) Corrigendum: Associations between Family Adversity and Brain Volume in Adolescence: Manual vs. Automated Brain Segmentation Yields Different Results. Front. Neurosci. 10:555. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2016.00555
Received
01 November 2016
Accepted
18 November 2016
Published
29 November 2016
Volume
10 - 2016
Edited and reviewed by
Yaroslav O. Halchenko, Dartmouth College, USA
Updates
Copyright
© 2016 Lyden, Gimbel, Del Piero, Tsai, Sachs, Kaplan, Margolin and Saxbe.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Hannah Lyden lyden@usc.edu
This article was submitted to Brain Imaging Methods, a section of the journal 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.