In the published article, there was an error in Figure 9 as published. The position of tick bars on some axes in the figure was incorrect, there was a mistake in the x-axis titles in panels A, and the legends in panels B were wrong. The corrected Figure 9 and its caption “Comparison of experimental (Reid et al., 2003) (left panels) and simulated (right panels) anterograde and retrograde recovery curves in the control case and after FP and SP ablations. (A) Experimental recovery curves in the control case and after FP ablation and simulated recovery curves. (B) Experimental recovery curves in the control case and after SP ablation and simulated recovery curves. Dashed lines correspond to the simulated retrograde conduction in the control case without coupling asymmetry” appear below.
FIGURE 9.
Comparison of experimental (Reid et al., 2003) (left panels) and simulated (right panels) anterograde and retrograde recovery curves in the control case and after FP and SP ablations. (A) Experimental recovery curves in the control case and after FP ablation and simulated recovery curves. (B) Experimental recovery curves in the control case and after SP ablation and simulated recovery curves. Dashed lines correspond to the simulated retrograde conduction in the control case without coupling asymmetry.
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Publisher’s note
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.