Author Correction: Low frequency transcranial electrical stimulation does not entrain sleep rhythms measured by human intracranial recordings
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 p...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2018
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/d77f86040daa4bf782bec7da13cfefe1 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | 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. |
|---|