Erratum: Direction selectivity in retinal bipolar cell axon terminals (Neuron (2021) 109(18) (2928–2942.e8), (S0896627321005183), (10.1016/j.neuron.2021.07.008))

(Neuron 109, 2928–2942.e1–e8; September 15, 2021) In the originally published version of this article, there were errors in equations used to determine the length constant (Figures 2D–2F). Although the parameters [Formula presented] and [Formula presented] should have been used (Hodgkin and Rushton, 1946, Proc. R. Soc. B.), [Formula presented] and [Formula presented] were used instead. These errors were introduced because an online Brain Science Dictionary that we relied on (https://dx.doi.org/10.14931/bsd.7666) had these errors in their equations. The author of the Brain Science Dictionary has agreed on these errors in response to our inquiry and corrected these on 3 September 2021 (original article with errors: https://bsd.neuroinf.jp/w/index.php?title=%E3%82%B1%E3%83%BC%E3%83%96%E3%83%AB%E7%90%86%E8%AB%96&direction=prev&oldid=46764). These errors caused incorrect values in Figures 2D–2F and suboptimal discussion in the originally published version of the article. The errors do not affect the conclusions of the paper. We apologize for this error. Figures 2D–2F and the related text, as well as the model parameters in STAR Methods, have been modified in the online version of the article. Editorial note This correction outlines an error in an underlying formula used to calculate lengths in a passive cable model. This model was added to the paper at the request of reviewers and unfortunately was not checked carefully in re-review. The corrected model is now accurately built but no longer fits entirely with the authors’ initial hypothesis as to how individual branches of bipolar cells can be tuned independently. Thus, the biophysical mechanisms that shape the output of individual bipolar cell axonal branches remain to be fully elucidated. However, the current correction has no bearing on the main conclusion of the paper, which is based on iGluSnFR imaging. The authors alerted the editors to the mistake after the paper was published online. The errors and their effects on the originally reported findings have been discussed with and assessed by expert reviewers. We appreciate and respect the fact that the authors came forward and expressed the need to correct their published report.