Author Correction: Low frequency transcranial electrical stimulation does not entrain sleep rhythms measured by human intracranial recordings

Belen Lafon, Simon Henin, Yu Huang, Daniel Friedman, Lucia Melloni, Thomas Thesen, Werner Doyle, György Buzsáki, Orrin Devinsky, Lucas C. Parra and Anli Liu ()
Additional contact information
Belen Lafon: City College of New York
Simon Henin: New York University Comprehensive Epilepsy Center
Yu Huang: City College of New York
Daniel Friedman: New York University Comprehensive Epilepsy Center
Lucia Melloni: New York University Comprehensive Epilepsy Center
Thomas Thesen: New York University School of Medicine
Werner Doyle: New York University Comprehensive Epilepsy Center
György Buzsáki: New York University School of Medicine
Orrin Devinsky: New York University Comprehensive Epilepsy Center
Lucas C. Parra: City College of New York
Anli Liu: New York University Comprehensive Epilepsy Center

Nature Communications, 2018, vol. 9, issue 1, 1-2

Abstract: It has come to our attention that we did not specify whether the stimulation magnitudes we report in this Article are peak amplitudes or peak-to-peak. All references to intensity given in mA in the manuscript refer to peak-to-peak amplitudes, except in Fig. 2, where the model is calibrated to 1 mA peak amplitude, as stated. In the original version of the paper we incorrectly calibrated the computational models to 1 mA peak-to-peak, rather than 1 mA peak amplitude. This means that we divided by a value twice as large as we should have. The correct estimated fields are therefore twice as large as shown in the original Fig. 2 and Supplementary Figure 11. The corrected figures are now properly calibrated to 1 mA peak amplitude. Furthermore, the sentence in the first paragraph of the Results section ‘Intensity ranged from 0.5 to 2.5 mA (current density 0.125–0.625 mA mA/cm2), which is stronger than in previous reports’, should have read ‘Intensity ranged from 0.5 to 2.5 mA peak to peak (peak current density 0.0625–0.3125 mA/cm2), which is stronger than in previous reports.’ These errors do not affect any of the Article’s conclusions.

Date: 2018
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03392-9 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:natcom:v:9:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-018-03392-9

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/ncomms/

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03392-9

Access Statistics for this article

Nature Communications is currently edited by Nathalie Le Bot, Enda Bergin and Fiona Gillespie

More articles in Nature Communications from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().