Gagnon, YL

Johnsen, S

Sutton, TT

English

College of William & Mary: W&M Publish

W&M ScholarWorks VIMS Articles 2015 Corrigendum to Visual acuity in pelagic fishes and mollusks (vol 92, pg 1, 2013) YL Gagnon TT Sutton Virginia Institute of Marine Science S Johnsen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/vimsarticles  Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons Recommended Citation Gagnon, YL; Sutton, TT; and Johnsen, S, "Corrigendum to Visual acuity in pelagic fishes and mollusks (vol 92, pg 1, 2013)" (2015). VIMS Articles. 829. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/vimsarticles/829 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in VIMS Articles by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@wm.edu. CorrigendumCorrigendum to ‘‘Visual acuity in pelagic fishes and mollusks’’[Vis. Res. 92 (2013) 1–9]Yakir L. Gagnon a,⇑, Tracey T. Sutton b, Sönke Johnsen aaDepartment of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USAbCollege of William & Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA, USAThe authors regret that the calculation of the angular full width at half maximum (\FWHM) of the point spread function of animallenses was miscalculated by a factor of two. This implies that the angular resolutions of the animals’ lenses are twice as high as previouslythought (i.e., the minimum resolvable angle is half of what is reported). Simply put, the animals’ vision is twice more acute than reported.The changes necessary are:1. Table 1: All the \FWHM values in Table 1 (second column from the right, titled \FWHM()) should be exactly half of their publishedvalue (see Table 1).2. Results: All values of \FWHM as well as the slope of the \FWHM regression in the text should be halved.3. Fig. 5a: The slope is equal to half of its current value (i.e., a = 0.14  103), the dots as well as the fitted line and its confidence intervalsare also different (see Fig. 1).4. Fig. 5c: The line and its confidence intervals are different (see Fig. 1).5. Discussion: ‘‘These three fish species have narrow \FWHM angles (0.2)’’ should read: ‘‘These three fish species have narrow \FWHMangles (0.1).’’6. Discussion: ‘‘. . .contrast at their retina cutoff frequency than 60%, the general trend. . .’’ should read: ‘‘. . .contrast at their retina cutofffrequency than 90%, the general trend. . .’’Above is the corrected version of Fig. 5.The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.Fig. 1. Corrected figure.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2015.07.0010042-6989/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2013.08.007⇑ Corresponding author. Current address: Queensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia.E-mail address: 12.yakir@gmail.com (Y.L. Gagnon).Vision Research 115 (2015) 155–156Contents lists available at ScienceDirectVision Researchjournal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /v isresTable 1Species nanimal nlens R  sd (mm) f  sd (mm) f/#  sd FWHM (lm) \FWHM() Depth (m)ActinopterygiiAnoplogaster cornuta 1 2 1.3  0.01 3.4  0.61 1.3  0.22 6.1 0.12 750–2300aArgyropelecus aculeatus 4 6 1.7  0.32 3.8  0.82 1.2  0.049 6.1 0.13 350–450bAstronesthes lucifer 1 2 1.4  0.0088 2.8  0.062 1  0.016 6.1 0.12 185–560cAvocettina infans 2 3 0.92  0.025 1.5  0.59 0.82  0.3 4.3 0.12 600–2000dBenthosema suborbitale 9 14 1.5  0.13 3.2  0.31 1  0.1 4.3 0.08 400–600eCaranx bartholomaei 1 1 1.4 2.3 0.81 15 0.38 0–50dChauliodus sloani 1 2 1.4  0.0089 2.9  0.26 1  0.086 11 0.23 500–2800fCheilopogon sp. 1 1 9.4 - - 19 - 1–5dCoccorella atlantica 1 1 1.4 2.1 0.78 13 0.34 500–1000dDiaphus splendidus 1 1 1.5 - - 12 - 300–600eDiplospinus multistriatus 1 2 1.1  0.0022 2  0.02 0.94  0.0076 7.4 0.21 500–1000dGonostoma elongatum 3 5 1  0.23 2  0.15 1.1  0.21 4.3 0.13 500–1200gIdiacanthus antrostomus 1 2 0.97  0.024 1.9  0.097 0.96  0.026 5 0.16 500–2000hLepidophanes guentheri 6 6 1.5  0.55 3.7  1.1 1  0.042 14 0.31 400–900eMalacosteus niger 3 5 1.6  0.41 3.3  0.86 1.1  0.14 7 0.18 500–900iMelanolagus bericoides 2 4 2.6  0.1 5.5 1 19 0.2 750–1700aOpisthoproctus soleatus 2 2 2.7  0.29 6.7  0.62 1.2  0.015 11 0.087 500–700dRegalecus glesne 1 2 0.64  0.0047 2.1  0.04 1.6  0.02 6.1 0.17 0–200dSaccopharynx sp. 1 2 0.47  0.0077 - - 74 - 1000–3000jScopeloberyx robustus 1 1 1.3 2.4 0.92 8.6 0.2 750–2300aScopelosaurus hoedti 1 2 1.6  0.0062 3.4  0.011 1  0.0072 5.6 0.094 300–600dSelar crumenophthalmus 1 2 1.4  0.013 2.5  0.71 0.89  0.25 12 0.35 0–170dSternoptyx diaphana 12 20 1.2  0.18 2.7  0.45 1.1  0.12 4.3 0.089 700–1200kTaaningichthys bathyphilus 1 1 1.1 - - 11 - 1000–1550eCephalopodaChiroteuthis sp. 1 2 1.6  0.095 - - 130 - 700–800lGaliteuthis pacifica 1 3 1.1  0.085 2.2  0.16 0.99  0.065 4.3 0.12 600–800lIllex sp. 2 3 1.4  0.14 2.4  0.82 0.89  0.27 11 0.29 200–600mPterygioteuthis microlampus 2 4 1  0.26 1.7  0.35 0.84  0.2 3.5 0.15 300–600lSthenoteuthis oualaniensis 1 2 4.3  0.062 10  0.4 1.2  0.063 17 0.093 400–600nGastropodaPterotrachea coronata 8 10 0.61  0.043 0.87  0.38 0.72  0.32 3.5 0.21 100–1000oa Sutton et al., 2008.b Hopkins and Baird, 1985.c Parin and Borodulina, 1995.d www.shbase.org, 2012.e Gartner et al., 1987.f Sutton et al., 2008, 2010, Sutton and Hopkins, 1996.g Sutton et al., 2010.h Sutton, 2003.i Sutton, 2005.j Bertelsen and Nielsen, 1986.k Hopkins and Baird, 1985, Sutton et al., 2010.l Young, 1978.m Roper et al., 1998.n Young and Hirota, 1998, Dunning, 1998.o Pafort-van Iersel, 1983.156 Y.L. Gagnon et al. / Vision Research 115 (2015) 155–156

Corrigendum to Visual acuity in pelagic fishes and mollusks (vol 92, pg 1, 2013)

https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1829&context=vimsarticles

Corrigendum to Visual acuity in pelagic fishes and mollusks (vol 92, pg 1, 2013)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

College of William & Mary: W&M Publish