In the original article, there was a mistake in Tables 1–4 as published. The tables show the data for n = 37 chronic pain patients and n = 37 matched healthy controls. However, the tables should have shown data for n = 42 chronic pain patients and n = 42 matched healthy controls. The corrected Tables 1–4 appears below.
Table 1
| Characteristics | Controls | Chronic pain patients |
|---|---|---|
| Sample size; n | 42 | 42 |
| Gender (female); n (%) | 31 (74) | 31 (74) |
| Age [years]; mean (range) | 54.1 (35–66) | 54.0 (33–68) |
| Mean education* (SD) | 2.71 (1.0) | 2.05 (1.1) |
| Verbal IQ (SD) | 106.0 (9.5) | 98.0 (9.3) |
| Sleeping problems | 8 | 28 |
| Duration of pain [years]; mean (range) | / | 16.8 (1–50) |
| Pain intensity** (SD) | / | 5.9 (1.6) |
| Participants on opioid medication | / | 15 |
| Participants with depression (ADS-K score >17) | 1 | 19 |
| Handedness (right, left, retrained left-handed) | 39, 1, 2 | 37, 1, 4 |
| (Main) pain syndromes† | Controls | Chronic Pain |
| Fibromyalgia | / | 9 (7) |
| Musculoskeletal back pain | / | 20 (19) |
| Cervical/cervicobrachial pain | / | 7 (5) |
| Neuropathic pain | / | 3 (3) |
| Arthralgia | / | 9 (6) |
| Abdominal pain | / | 2 (2) |
| Myalgia | / | 1 (0) |
Characteristics of participants.
SD, Standard deviation; ADS-K, General Depression Scale - Short form;
education refers to 0 = no degree, 1 = lower secondary education, 2 = secondary school, 3 = A-levels, 4 = university degree;
on an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (0 = no pain; 10 = worst pain imaginable) on the day of testing.
The total amount of participants reporting different pain syndromes. In brackets, only the corresponding main pain category of each participant is listed.
Table 2
| Tasks | MADER (SD) controls | MADER (SD) patients | T-value | df | p-value | Cohen's d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| POSITION MARKING | ||||||
| Overall | 4.1 (1.5) | 5.1 (1.9) | −2.686 | 80 | 0.009 | 0.58 |
| Familiar | ||||||
| Horizontal | 3.7 (1.7) | 4.2 (2.1) | −1.217 | 81 | 0.227 | 0.26 |
| Vertical | 3.7 (1.8) | 4.4 (2.0) | −1.852 | 81 | 0.068 | 0.37 |
| Unfamiliar | ||||||
| Horizontal | 3.8 (2.0) | 5.3 (2.4) | −3.288 | 81 | 0.001* | 0.60 |
| Vertical | 5.0 (2.6) | 6.1 (2.9) | −1.782 | 80 | 0.079 | 0.40 |
| NUMBER NAMING | ||||||
| Overall | 3.4 (0.9) | 4.4 (1.4) | −4.075 | 68.205 | <0.001* | 0.85 |
| Familiar | ||||||
| Horizontal | 3.1 (1.3) | 4.1 (2.4) | −2.298 | 81 | 0.024 | 0.52 |
| Vertical | 3.5 (1.4) | 4.2 (1.6) | −1.987 | 81 | 0.05 | 0.47 |
| Unfamiliar | ||||||
| Horizontal | 3.5 (1.3) | 4.6 (2.1) | −2.813 | 81 | 0.006 | 0.63 |
| Vertical | 3.4 (1.2) | 5.0 (1.9) | −4.392 | 67.147 | <0.001* | 1.00 |
Comparisons of MADER for different experimental conditions using independent samples t-tests.
On the left, the Mean Absolute Deviation from the Expected Respective Response (MADER) is shown for each subtask of number line experiments for controls and pain patients. On the right, results of statistical analyses for differences between group MADERs for each experimental condition are displayed. SD, standard deviation;
p < 0.005 (Bonferroni-corrected alpha-level).
Table 3
| MADER | Number naming | Position marking | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low distance | High distance | T | df | p | Low distance | High distance | T | df | p | |
| MADER (SD) controls | 3.5 (1.2) | 3.3 (1.2) | −1.125 | 41 | 0.267 | 3.8 (1.7) | 4.3 (1.7) | 1.994 | 41 | 0.053 |
| MADER (SD) patients | 4.5 (1.6) | 4.4 (1.9) | 0.410 | 40 | 0.684 | 4.3 (1.7) | 5.8 (2.5) | 4.860 | 39 | <0.001 |
MADER and dependent t-statistics for low- and high-distance stimuli of the number line estimation tasks for chronic pain patients and controls.
Table 4
| Neuropsychological tests | Controls M (SD) | Chronic pain patients M (SD) |
|---|---|---|
| COVERT SHIFT OF ATTENTION | ||
| Valid trial–right target | 316.0 (63.0) | 323.0 (59.1) |
| Valid trial–left target | 322.6 (67.1) | 326.8 (67.8) |
| Invalid trial–right target | 374.2 (88.0) | 379.8 (75.8) |
| Invalid trial–left target | 352.0 (91.8) | 355.6 (72.0) |
| SUSTAINED ATTENTION | ||
| Omissions 0–5 min. | 3.0 (2.9) | 2.9 (2.5) |
| Omissions 5–10 min. | 3.0 (2.6) | 4.0 (3.6) |
| Omissions 10–15 min. | 2.7 (2.5) | 3.7 (3.3) |
| WORKING MEMORY | ||
| Errors | 1.7 (2.0) | 2.7 (3.2) |
| Misses | 1.3 (1.6) | 1.7 (2.6) |
Descriptive results from the subtests of the computerized TAP battery for chronic pain patients and controls separately.
In covert shift of attention, values are given in milliseconds. For sustained attention and working memory, absolute values are reported.
Additionally, there was a mistake in the legend for Table 1 as published. The scaling of the variables “education” and “opioid medication” was incorrect. The correct legend appears below.
“SD: Standard deviation; ADS-K: General Depression Scale - Short form; *education refers to 0 = no degree, 1 = lower secondary education, 2 = secondary school, 3 = A-levels, 4 = university degree; **on an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (0 = no pain; 10 = worst pain imaginable) on the day of testing.
†The total amount of participants reporting different pain syndromes. In brackets, only the corresponding main pain category of each participant is listed.”
Lastly, in the original article, there was an error. The number sense performance of patients with vs. without opioid medication, was compared using the same incorrect sample size as mentioned above.
A correction has been made to the Results, Experimental Tests and Questionnaires, Clinical pain assessment, and number sense.
“Finally, the role of opioid medication on number sense performance was evaluated, suggesting that patients with opioid medication performed equally well on both number naming [n = 13; M = 4.7, SD = 1.7, t(40) = −0.542, p = 0.591] and position marking [n = 13; M = 4.8, SD = 1.3, t(39) = 0.818, p = 0.419] compared to patients without opioid medication (number naming: n = 29; M = 4.4, SD = 1.3; position marking: n = 28; M = 5.3, SD = 2.1).”
The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Statements
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Summary
Keywords
chronic pain, number sense, pain rating scales, number line task, pain assessment
Citation
Spindler M, Koch K, Borisov E, Özyurt J, Sörös P, Thiel C and Bantel C (2019) Corrigendum: The Influence of Chronic Pain and Cognitive Function on Spatial-Numerical Processing. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 13:29. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00029
Received
28 January 2019
Accepted
31 January 2019
Published
19 February 2019
Approved by
Oliver T. Wolf, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany
Volume
13 - 2019
Updates
Copyright
© 2019 Spindler, Koch, Borisov, Özyurt, Sörös, Thiel and Bantel.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Melanie Spindler melanie.spindler@uni-oldenburg.de
†These authors have contributed equally to this work
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.