Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2015 Sep 14;10(9):e0138589. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138589

Correction: Cognitive Fatigue Destabilizes Economic Decision Making Preferences and Strategies

The PLOS ONE Staff
PMCID: PMC4569472  PMID: 26368564

The order of Figs 2 and 3 is switched. Please view the correct Fig 2 and Fig 3 here. The publisher apologizes for the error.

Fig 2. Cognitive fatigue ratings.

Fig 2

State fatigue and effort across the experimental protocol. The fatigue (orange bars) and control groups (light and dark blue bars: 5-blocks and 7-blocks of N-back respectively) did not differ significantly in (A) self-reported cognitive fatigue pre- manipulation and (B) RSME scores, at baseline. However, post- manipulation, the fatigue group reported significantly higher cognitive fatigue and RSME scores as compared to the non-fatigue group, suggesting that the manipulation was successful in inducing fatigue in the fatigue groups.

Fig 3. Example choice functions.

Fig 3

(A) In the gains domain, the range of risk preferences is represented on a continuum from risk seeing (left) to risk averse (right). The indifference point of each choice function is marked with a red inverted-triangle. Risk premium is determined by the value on the ‘(rEVG / Vc) -1’ (x-axis) at this indifferent point. (B) In the losses domain, the range of risk preferences is represented on a continuum from risk averse (left) to risk seeking (right).

Reference


Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES