Erratum to An Examination of Amplification and Attenuation Effects in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Using Spectral Ratios

Correction| September 26, 2025 Early Publication Erratum to An Examination of Amplification and Attenuation Effects in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Using Spectral Ratios Available to Purchase Zhen Guo; Zhen Guo 1School of Science, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, China Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Martin C. Chapman Martin C. Chapman * 2Department of Geosciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. *Corresponding author: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2956-8305 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Zhen Guo 1School of Science, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, China Martin C. Chapman https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2956-8305 * 2Department of Geosciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. *Corresponding author: [email protected] Publisher: Seismological Society of America First Online: 26 Sep 2025 Online ISSN: 1943-3573 Print ISSN: 0037-1106 © Seismological Society of America Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2025) https://doi.org/10.1785/0120250223 Article history First Online: 26 Sep 2025 Connected Content Original article: An Examination of Amplification and Attenuation Effects in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Using Spectral Ratios Tools View This Citation Add to Citation Manager for Citation Zhen Guo, Martin C. Chapman; Erratum to An Examination of Amplification and Attenuation Effects in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Using Spectral Ratios. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2025; doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120250223 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Permissions In the original article by Guo and Chapman (2019), the authors failed to explicitly give the regression standard error of estimate for equation (10). That value is 0.419. Equation (10) as originally published is correct. In addition, the 16th and 84th percentile values for differential kappa were plotted incorrectly in figure 5. We have included a corrected version of Figure 5 and caption in this erratum. These corrections do not alter the conclusions of the study. The authors acknowledge that there are no conflicts of interest recorded. View Original Article You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.