We elaborate on this in both the main text and the figure caption for the new Figure 7. 5) As described, the ROI analyses in the fifth paragraph of subsection "Accumulating Basal Ganglia Output During No-Go Decisions "raise concerns about circularity (i.e., the ROIs were essentially selected based on the interactions now being tested: differences in probability modulation by condition).
Please see the revised captions for Figure 1, Figure 3, Figure 1 figure supplement 1. 6) In Figure 2, some of the extensions in panel B do not seem to match the extensions in panel C, particularly for the 7 pN and 9 pN data (i.e. the position of the dotted lines in B does not match the position of the peaks in C).
The effect is illustrated in Fig. 7, where the permittivity profiles of a phantom (see the caption of the figures and Table 2 for details) are reconstructed using the logarithmic and the complex algorithms at frequencies ranging from 900 MHz to 1700 MHz, in 200 MHz increments.
Since publication of Environmental Health 2011, 10(Suppl 1):S12 [ 1] it has been noticed that titles and captions for the figures and tables were incorrectly applied.
The correct caption to the Figure appears below: Figure.
In some parts of the manuscript (e.g., the caption for figure 3) the description of the modelling/simulation example seems a bit excessive, and detracts from the primary focus of the article.
The captions for these figures can be found in the paper.
In the caption for Figure 3, the symbol " [Errorhx03B5]" was replaced by symbol " ".
On the suggestion of reviewers, two small changes were made to the CI postvalidation: the figure caption for the Minnow scenario was edited to more accurately describe the image provided and, in question 6, one word in a distracter (response D; see Supplemental Material) was changed to ensure the response directly contradicted the stem.
The caption for Figure 5 in the original publication incorrectly stated that data for complexes 1– 4 were shown.
We find that the discrepancy between the observed and simulated TOE is unlikely to be caused by internal climate variability (Fig. S9; see the descriptions in the figure caption for the approaches used for statistical tests of this sort).
