Erratum

L. Subramanian; L. Skottnik; W. M. Cox; M. Lührs; R. McNamara; K. Hood; G. Watson; J. R. Whittaker; A. N. Williams; R. Sakhuja; N. Ihssen; R. Goebel; R. Playle; D. E. J. Linden

doi:10.1159/000517465

Erratum

L. Subramanian, L. Skottnik, W. M. Cox, M. Lührs, R. McNamara, K. Hood, G. Watson, J. R. Whittaker, A. N. Williams, R. Sakhuja, N. Ihssen, R. Goebel, R. Playle, D. E. J. Linden

Research output: Contribution to journal › Erratum / corrigendum / retractions › Academic

Abstract

In the article “Neurofeedback Training versus Treatment-as-Usual for Alcohol Dependence: Results of an Early-Phase Randomized Controlled Trial and Neuroimaging Correlates” [Eur Addict Res. 2021. DOI: 10.1159/000513448] by Subramanian et al., the authors found that fMRI analyses were erroneous, leading to altered results of the ROI analysis (Fig. 3; online suppl. figures S1–S3; for all online suppl. material, see www.karger.com/doi/10.1159/000517465; χ2 results) and whole-brain analysis (Fig. 2). The corrected results confirm the feasibility of the alcohol-cue neurofeedback training but do not provide evidence that up-regulation of the neurofeedback signal in the alternative goals condition was feasible for participants.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	395-397
Number of pages	3
Journal	European Addiction Research
Volume	27
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1159/000517465
Publication status	Published - Aug 2021

Access to Document

10.1159/000517465

Cite this

@article{ad3932e33f664e229f95b2b4310d74a3,

title = "Erratum",

abstract = "In the article “Neurofeedback Training versus Treatment-as-Usual for Alcohol Dependence: Results of an Early-Phase Randomized Controlled Trial and Neuroimaging Correlates” [Eur Addict Res. 2021. DOI: 10.1159/000513448] by Subramanian et al., the authors found that fMRI analyses were erroneous, leading to altered results of the ROI analysis (Fig. 3; online suppl. figures S1–S3; for all online suppl. material, see www.karger.com/doi/10.1159/000517465; χ2 results) and whole-brain analysis (Fig. 2). The corrected results confirm the feasibility of the alcohol-cue neurofeedback training but do not provide evidence that up-regulation of the neurofeedback signal in the alternative goals condition was feasible for participants.",

author = "L. Subramanian and L. Skottnik and Cox, {W. M.} and M. L{\"u}hrs and R. McNamara and K. Hood and G. Watson and Whittaker, {J. R.} and Williams, {A. N.} and R. Sakhuja and N. Ihssen and R. Goebel and R. Playle and Linden, {D. E. J.}",

year = "2021",

month = aug,

doi = "10.1159/000517465",

language = "English",

volume = "27",

pages = "395--397",

journal = "European Addiction Research",

issn = "1022-6877",

publisher = "Karger",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Erratum

AU - Subramanian, L.

AU - Skottnik, L.

AU - Cox, W. M.

AU - Lührs, M.

AU - McNamara, R.

AU - Hood, K.

AU - Watson, G.

AU - Whittaker, J. R.

AU - Williams, A. N.

AU - Sakhuja, R.

AU - Ihssen, N.

AU - Goebel, R.

AU - Playle, R.

AU - Linden, D. E. J.

PY - 2021/8

Y1 - 2021/8

N2 - In the article “Neurofeedback Training versus Treatment-as-Usual for Alcohol Dependence: Results of an Early-Phase Randomized Controlled Trial and Neuroimaging Correlates” [Eur Addict Res. 2021. DOI: 10.1159/000513448] by Subramanian et al., the authors found that fMRI analyses were erroneous, leading to altered results of the ROI analysis (Fig. 3; online suppl. figures S1–S3; for all online suppl. material, see www.karger.com/doi/10.1159/000517465; χ2 results) and whole-brain analysis (Fig. 2). The corrected results confirm the feasibility of the alcohol-cue neurofeedback training but do not provide evidence that up-regulation of the neurofeedback signal in the alternative goals condition was feasible for participants.

AB - In the article “Neurofeedback Training versus Treatment-as-Usual for Alcohol Dependence: Results of an Early-Phase Randomized Controlled Trial and Neuroimaging Correlates” [Eur Addict Res. 2021. DOI: 10.1159/000513448] by Subramanian et al., the authors found that fMRI analyses were erroneous, leading to altered results of the ROI analysis (Fig. 3; online suppl. figures S1–S3; for all online suppl. material, see www.karger.com/doi/10.1159/000517465; χ2 results) and whole-brain analysis (Fig. 2). The corrected results confirm the feasibility of the alcohol-cue neurofeedback training but do not provide evidence that up-regulation of the neurofeedback signal in the alternative goals condition was feasible for participants.

UR - https://doi.org/10.1159/000513448

U2 - 10.1159/000517465

DO - 10.1159/000517465

M3 - Erratum / corrigendum / retractions

C2 - 34350852

SN - 1022-6877

VL - 27

SP - 395

EP - 397

JO - European Addiction Research

JF - European Addiction Research

IS - 5

ER -

Erratum

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Neurofeedback Training versus Treatment-as-Usual for Alcohol Dependence: Results of an Early-Phase Randomized Controlled Trial and Neuroimaging Correlates

Cite this