Correction: A unifying Bayesian account of contextual effects in value-based choice.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005769.].

Fig 5 and Fig 6 are incorrect. The authors have provided a corrected version here.

Fig 5

A Empirical evidence (derived from integrating data from available studies as in [19]) concerning the difference in probability between choosing option A and option B when a third option K is available (P[A|A,B,K] − P[B|A,B,K]). Here options are characterized by two attributes (price p and quality q). For car A, we assign R = 1 to price (low scores indicate high price) and R = 10 to quality. For car B, we assign R = 10 to price and R = 1 to quality. The graph considers the choice probability difference between option A and option B as a function of the reward amounts R (for quality; x axis) and R (for price; y axis) of a third option K. Green areas indicate values for which no difference is expected based on empirical evidence; orange and blue areas indicates values for which a positive and negative difference is expected, respectively. B: The same analysis is performed with data simulated using BCV (100000 trials are simulated for each condition; μ = 0; ; = 1 for simulations).

Fig 6

Predictions of BCV about the difference in probability between choosing option A and option B when a third option K is available ( Here options are characterized by two attributes (price p and quality q). For car A, we assign R = 1 to price (low scores indicate high price) and R = 10 to quality. For car B, we assign R = 10 to price and R = 1 to quality. The graph considers the choice probability difference between option A and option B as a function of the reward amounts R (for quality; x axis) and R (for price; y axis) of a third option K (100000 trials are simulated for each condition; = 1 for simulations). Different parameter sets are swn. A: Simulation using μ = −2 and . B: Simulation using μ = 2 and . C: Simulation using μ = 0 and . D: Simulation using μ = 0 and .