The authors note they calculated the RMS contrast incorrectly.Authors state: "We computed RMS contrast as the SD of pixel intensities, rather than the SD divided by the mean.All images had a mean luminance of 0.5 0.013, so all contrast values in the text, figures, and tables should be doubled.The code repository (cited as ref.37 in the article) has been updated to correctly compute RMS contrast.The conclusions are unaffected by this correction."On page 3, left column, first full paragraph, line 3, "F = 56" should instead appear as "F = 57" and "F = 11" should instead appear as "F = 12".In the next paragraph, beginning on line 11, "0.024" should appear as "0.048," "0.018" should appear as "0.037," and "0.044 and 0.021" should appear as "0.088 and 0.041."On page 4, left column, first full paragraph, line 7, "0.15" should instead appear as "0.14."On page 8, in the Materials and Methods section, in the second paragraph under "Visual Stimuli," the second to last sentence should appear as: "We adjusted contrast in octave steps down from the RMS contrast of the original image computed as the SD of the luminance values divided by the mean (32)."Reference 32 has been added to support this change.Figs. 1-5, Table 2, and SI Appendix , Figs.S2-S6 appeared incorrectly due to this error.
A Fri, study studied this question.