José C. Perales- Learning, Emotion, and Decision Research Group, Mind, Brain and Behavior Research Center/Centro de Investigación Mente, Cerebro y Comportamiento, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain
A corrigendum on
Emotional and non-emotional pathways to impulsive behavior and addiction
by Torres, A., Catena, A., Megías, A., Maldonado, A., Cándido, A., Verdejo-García, A., et al. (2013). Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7:43. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00043
The responses of the control group to the now-or-later task were erroneously transcribed into the statistical software. Therefore, some results of the analyses involving this task are incorrect. The instances of the published manuscript affected by this error must be rewritten as follows.
Now or Later Task
Mean (SD) scores were 16.48 (3.75), 17.00 (4.86), and 15.15 (4.59), for HC, PG, and CDI, respectively. The group effect was not significant [F(2, 64) < 1] (in contrast to what was reported in the published version of the paper, p. 7, l. 1).
Relationships between Impulsivity Dimensions and Decision-Making Tasks
The five UPPS-P dimensions were used as predictors of sensitivity to reward delay in a stepwise regression analysis. Sensation seeking (instead of negative urgency, as stated in the published version, p. 7, l. 30) emerged as the only significantly predictive dimension [β = −0.30, t(63) = −2.48, p < 0.02].
Discussion
This error only affects secondary analyses, and therefore its impact on general conclusions is rather limited. Still, we argued that “the involvement of negative urgency in reward delay sensitivity are partially contradictory with Cyders and Coskunpinar's (2011a; although see Cyders and Coskunpinar, 2011b) findings on the relationship between trait and neuropsychological measures of impulsivity” (p. 8). Given that negative urgency is not really involved in reward delay sensitivity, this contradiction no longer exists. Similarly, we mentioned that “the tight link between negative urgency and emotionally-charged decision-making processes is reinforced by the fact that negative urgency was the only dimension significantly predicting sensitivity to reward delay in the delay discounting task.” (pp. 8–9). This assertion is not supported by the corrected delay discounting data. Actually, sensation seeking was the only impulsivity dimension independently (and inversely) predicting reward delay sensitivity.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Acknowledgment
The transcription error was detected by an independent research team, while they were reanalyzing our data for meta-analytic purposes. Although they prefer to remain anonymous, we would like to thank them for their effort and carefulness.
References
Cyders, M., and Coskunpinar, A. (2011a). Measurement of constructs using self-report and behavioral lab tasks: is there overlap in nomothetic span and construct representation for impulsivity? Clin. Psychol. Rev. 31, 965–982. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.06.001
Keywords: impulsivity, emotion, addiction, decision-making, delay discounting, Go/No-go, UPPS-P, N2 ERP
Citation: Perales JC (2014) Corrigendum: Emotional and non-emotional pathways to impulsive behavior and addiction. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8:411. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00411
Received: 27 March 2014; Accepted: 22 May 2014;
Published online: 22 August 2014.
Edited and reviewed by: James Blair, National Institute of Mental Health, USA
Copyright © 2014 Perales. 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) or licensor 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:amNlc2FyQHVnci5lcw==