Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeAuthor's Note: Minor Errors in Article
Posted by qhuys on 04 Mar 2020 at 14:55 GMT
Page 6: The sentence "The inferred reinforcement sensitivities from model `Pruning & Loss' are shown in Figure 5B" should read "The inferred reinforcement sensitivities from model `Loss' are shown in Figure 5B".
Figure 5B: The title of this figure reads "Best loss model inferred sensitivities" but should read "Loss only model inferred sensitivities".
Discussion, end of fourth paragraph says: "To the extent to which loss aversion can be described as an inflexible, reactive, response to an aversive stimulus, it may represent a third instance of Pavlovian responses to losses interfering with goal-directed decisions in this task [27]." However, loss aversion is not observed after accounting for pruning. This should hence be clarified by adding the sentence: "However, in this sample loss aversion was no longer evident when pruning was taken into account, i.e. pruning could explain away loss aversion, but loss aversion did not explain away pruning.".
All other findings and all key conclusions remain unaltered.