There was a mistake in the formula we used to calculate the sunk cost. It was erroneously given as ((lL+4xhL)-(IR+2xhR)+2)/6. The correct equation is ((lL + 5xhL) -(lR + 2xhR) + 2)/7, and therefore a correction has been made to the method section."The sunk cost was then formulated as ((lL + 5xhL) -(lR + 2xhR) + 2)/7. The first term (lL + 5xhL) indicates the contribution of a loss outcome, while hL has a weight of "5" due to its quintuple monetary loss. Similarly, the second term (IR + 2xhR) indicates the contribution of a reward outcome with a double weight on hR. Theoretically, the maximum uncorrected sunk cost is 5 if a participant only chooses hL i.e., (0 + 5×1) -(0 + 2×0) = 5, and the minimum is -2 if a participant only chooses hR i.e., (0 + 5×0) -(0 + 2×1) = -2. To fix the sunk cost range to be from 0 to 1, we added a correction factor of 2 and divided the result by 7."Using the updated formula, a correction has been made to the last four sentences in the Results section."There was also a difference in sunk cost among subject groups one-way ANOVA; F(2, 27) = 4.70, p = 0.018, ηp2 = 0.258 (Figure 1F). Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc comparisons revealed a significantly higher sunk cost (i.e., cost of seeking reward) in aVM patients compared to controls (p = 0.018). Furthermore, measures of sunk cost were positively correlated with measures of dizzy symptoms in the aVM group (Pearson correlation r = 0.805; p = 0.005) but not in the cVM group (Pearson correlation r = -0.226; p = 0.530) (Figure 1G). This was despite significantly higher DHI scores in the cVM group compared to the aVM group (p = 0.01) (Table 2)."Similarly, Table 2 and Figure 1F and G have been updated, and the corrected Table 2 andFigure
Sharif et al. (Thu,) studied this question.