Kawato, Mitsuo

Koizumi, Ai

Lau, Hakwan

Nakae, Aya

Seymour, Ben

Sumioka, Hidenobu

Taylor, Jessica E.

English

Apollo (Cambridge)

CORRECTIONpublished: 07 July 2020doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00638Frontiers in Neuroscience | www.frontiersin.org 1 July 2020 | Volume 14 | Article 638Edited and reviewed by:Kathrin Ohla,Institute of Neuroscience andMedicine, Jülich ResearchCentre, Germany*Correspondence:Jessica E. Taylorjessie.elizabeth.taylor@gmail.comAi Koizumibellkoizumi@gmail.comSpecialty section:This article was submitted toPerception Science,a section of the journalFrontiers in NeuroscienceReceived: 13 May 2020Accepted: 22 May 2020Published: 07 July 2020Citation:Taylor JE, Lau H, Seymour B,Nakae A, Sumioka H, Kawato M andKoizumi A (2020) Corrigendum: AnEvolutionarily Threat-Relevant OdorStrengthens Human Fear Memory.Front. Neurosci. 14:638.doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00638Corrigendum: An EvolutionarilyThreat-Relevant Odor StrengthensHuman Fear MemoryJessica E. Taylor 1*, Hakwan Lau 1,2,3, Ben Seymour 4,5,6, Aya Nakae 7, Hidenobu Sumioka 8,Mitsuo Kawato 1,4 and Ai Koizumi 1,4,9*1Department of Decoded Neurofeedback (DecNef), Computational Neuroscience Laboratories, AdvancedTelecommunications Research Institute International, Kyoto, Japan, 2Department of Psychology, Brain Research Institute,University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States, 3Department of Psychology, University of Hong Kong,Pokfulam, Hong Kong, 4Center for Information and Neural Networks (CiNet), National Institute of Information andCommunications Technology (NICT), Osaka, Japan, 5Computational and Biological Learning Lab, Department of Engineering,University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 6Department of Neural Computation for Decision-Making, CognitiveMechanisms Laboratories, Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International, Kyoto, Japan, 7Graduate Schoolof Frontier Biosciences, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan, 8Hiroshi Ishiguro Laboratories, Advanced TelecommunicationsResearch Institute International, Kyoto, Japan, 9 Sony Computer Science Laboratories, Inc., Tokyo, JapanKeywords: fear memory, human olfaction, predator odor, innate fear, contextual memory modulationA Corrigendum onAn Evolutionarily Threat-Relevant Odor Strengthens Human Fear Memoryby Taylor, J. E., Lau, H., Seymour, B., Nakae, A., Sumioka, H., Kawato, M., et al. (2020). Front.Neurosci. 14:255. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00255In the original article, there was a mistake in the legends for Figures 2 and 3 as published.The ratings should be “(from 0 to 3)” and not “(from −5 to 5)”. The corrected figure legendsappear below:“Figure 2. Results of the Acquisition phase. Skin conductance responses (SCRs) (peak-trough)were z-scored, log-transformed, and averaged across participants in each group. Unconditionedstimuli (US) expectancy ratings (from 0 to 3) were averagxed across participants in each group.Overall, participants in both the 2-methyl-2-thiazoline (2MT) and Control groups were similarlysuccessful in fear acquisition. For both SCR and US expectancy, mean responses to the conditionedstimuli (CS)– were subtracted from those to the CS+ s to display fear-specific effects. Error barsrepresent standard error of the mean. (A) The SCRs of both groups, were significantly greater to thetwo CS+ s than to the CS–. This provides evidence for successful acquisition of CS–US associations.(B) Likewise, the US expectancy ratings of both groups, were significantly greater to the two CS+ sthan to the CS.”“Figure 3. Results of the Test phase. Skin conductance responses (SCRs) (peak–trough) were z-scored, log-transformed, and averaged across participants in each group. Unconditioned stimuli(US) expectancy ratings (from 0 to 3) were averaged across participants in each group. Meanresponses to the conditioned stimuli (CS)– were subtracted from those to the CS+ s to displayfear-specific effects. Furthermore, because no effects of the odor context used in the Test phase werefound, mean responses were averaged across these for ease of display. Error bars represent standarderror of the mean. (A)Overall, for the 2-methyl-2-thiazoline (2MT) group, SCRs were significantlystronger to the two CS+ s than to the CS–. No significant differences were found for the Controlgroup. For demonstrative purposes, independent-sample t-tests were conducted to compare (CS+– CS–) between groups (collapsed across the two Odor Contexts used in the Test phase). Bothshowed significant differences (∗∗p < 0.01). (B) On average, both groups rated US expectancy asTaylor et al. Corrigendum: Evolutionarily Threat-Relevant Odorhigher on the CS+ than on the CS– trials, with no apparentdifference between the groups.”In addition, the Supplementary Figures are missing legends.The correct legends appear below.“Supplementary Figure 1. Odor-matching in mainexperiment (potential range = −5 to 5, results are averagedacross participants within each group). Overall, there were nosignificant differences in odor ratings between the 2MT andControl groups. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.These results suggest that any between-group fear memorydifferences found in this experiment cannot be explained by howpleasant, familiar, and/or how liked the different odors were.”“Supplementary Figure 2. Detailed SCR results of the Testphase of the main experiment. SCRs (peak-trough) are z-scored,log-transformed, and averaged across participants in each group.Overall, SCRs of the 2MT group were greater to the two CS+sthan to the CS– in both odor contexts. No such difference wasfound for the Control group. For demonstrative purposes, foreach odor context, paired-sample t-tests were conducted withineach group to compare SCRs to the different CS (∗p < 0.05;∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001). Error bars represent standard errorof the mean.”“Supplementary Figure 3. Odor-matching in Follow-UpCortisol Experiment (potential range = −5 to 5, results areaveraged across participants within each group). Overall, therewere no significant differences in odor ratings between the 2MTand Control groups. Error bars represent standard error ofthe mean.”“Supplementary Figure 4. Detailed results of the follow-up Long-Term Test. SCRs (peak-trough) are z-scored, log-transformed, and averaged across participants in each group.Unlike in the analysis for the results of the original Test, analysisof SCRs in the follow-up Long-Term Test showed no significanteffect of CS. Therefore, in this figure, mean responses to theCS– were not subtracted from those to the CS+s. US expectancyratings (from 0 to 3) were averaged across participants in eachgroup. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. The topgraph shows SCRs, which appear to be higher for the 2MT thanfor the Control group in both odor contexts. The bottom graphshows US expectancy ratings, which also appear to be higher forthe 2MT than for the Control group, except for those to the CS-in the Extinction Odor Context.”“Supplementary Figure 5. Results of the Extinction phase.SCRs (peak-trough) are z-scored, log-transformed, and averagedacross participants in each group. Mean responses to theCS– were subtracted from those to the CS+s to display fear-specific effects. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.Overall, neither group showed significant differences betweenSCRs to the Extinction CS+ and the CS–. This indicates thatthere was a lack of fear-like responses to the Extinction CS+during the Extinction phase.”Finally, a file is missing in the Supplementary Material. It hasnow been published as Data Sheet 1.The authors apologize for these errors and state that they donot change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way.The original article has been updated.Copyright © 2020 Taylor, Lau, Seymour, Nakae, Sumioka, Kawato and Koizumi.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forumsis permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are creditedand that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with acceptedacademic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does notcomply with these terms.Frontiers in Neuroscience | www.frontiersin.org 2 July 2020 | Volume 14 | Article 638

Corrigendum: An Evolutionarily Threat-Relevant Odor Strengthens Human Fear Memory

https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/308209/fnins-14-00638.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

Corrigendum: An Evolutionarily Threat-Relevant Odor Strengthens Human Fear Memory

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Apollo (Cambridge)