In the published article, there was an error. Two sentences in section 5.1. Extension of EEF model with loss aversion, Paragraphs 4 and 5, used outdated statistical values.
Corrections have been made to 5.1 Extension of EEF model with loss aversion, Paragraphs 4 and 5. These paragraphs previously stated:
“Figure 7 shows the comparison of SED and FI, and we can find that although the EEFLA model performed slightly worse than the EEF model (the SED of EEFLA is 1.598, with a difference of 0.106 from the original data, while the SED of EEF has a difference of only 0.008 from the original data; the FI of EEFLA is 4.02, with a difference of 2.22 from the original data, while the FI of EEF has a difference of 2.07), it still outperformed the other models. This indicates that the EEFLA model is still capable of effectively simulating human decision-making behaviors.
However, it can be seen from Figure 8 that the performance of the EEFLA model is not outstanding in terms of parameter recovery and fixed-effects statistical model analysis. The average correlation coefficient for EEFLA's parameter recovery is 0.77155 (range: 0.60 – 0.93), which is lower than the EEF model's 0.8299 (range: 0.64 – 0.96). Additionally, the EEFLA model did not perform well in the previously mentioned fixed-effects statistical model analysis.”
The corrected paragraphs appear below:
“Figure 7 shows the comparison of SED and FI, and we can find that although the EEFLA model performed slightly worse than the EEF model (the SED of EEFLA is 1.598, with a difference of 0.049 from the original data, while the SED of EEF has a difference of only 0.008 from the original data; the FI of EEFLA is 4.02, with a difference of 2.22 from the original data, while the FI of EEF has a difference of 2.11), it still outperformed most of the other models. This indicates that the EEFLA model is still capable of effectively simulating human decision-making behaviors.
However, it can be seen from Figure 8 that the performance of the EEFLA model is not outstanding in terms of parameter recovery and fixed-effects statistical model analysis. The composite correlation coefficient for EEFLA's parameter recovery is 0.785 (range: 0.58–0.93), which is lower than the EEF model's 0.849 (range: 0.69–0.96). Additionally, the EEFLA model did not perform well in the previously mentioned fixed-effects statistical model analysis.”
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.