In the original article, there was an error. In the abstract, the sentence “While VTE at the first choicepoint increased with the number of repeated choices, VTE at the second choice point did not, andonly increased after unexpected transitions within the task.” should read “While VTE at the firstchoice point decreased with the number of repeated choices, VTE at the second choice point didnot, and only increased after unexpected transitions within the task.” The corrected abstract shouldread:“Current theories suggest that decision-making arises frommultiple, competing action-selectionsystems. Rodent studies dissociate deliberation and procedural behavior, and find a transitionfrom procedural to deliberative behavior with experience. However, it remains unknown how thistransition from deliberative to procedural control evolves within single trials, or within blocksof repeated choices. We adapted for rats a two-step task which has been used to dissociatemodel-based from model-free decisions in humans. We found that a mixture of model-based andmodel-free algorithms was more likely to explain rat choice strategies on the task than eithermodel-based or model-free algorithms alone. This task contained two choices per trial, whichprovides a more complex and non-discrete per-trial choice structure. This task structure enabledus to evaluate how deliberative and procedural behavior evolved within-trial and within blocks ofrepeated choice sequences. We found that vicarious trial and error (VTE), a behavioral correlateof deliberation in rodents, was correlated between the two choice points on a given lap. We alsofound that behavioral stereotypy, a correlate of procedural automation, increased with the numberof repeated choices. While VTE at the first choice point decreased with the number of repeatedchoices, VTE at the second choice point did not, and only increased after unexpected transitionswithin the task. This suggests that deliberation at the beginning of trialsmay correspond to changesin choice patterns, while mid-trial deliberation may correspond to an interruption of a proceduralprocess.”The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusionsof the article in any way.The original article has been updated.
Bibliographical notePublisher Copyright:
© 2018 Hasz and Redish.