This article [J. Biomed. Opt. 22(5), 050501 (2017), doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.22.5.050501] was originally published online on 22 May 2017, with an error in a subset of the phase functions used in the simulations. Instead of double Henyey Greenstein (HG) phase functions [Eqs. (1)–(2), where $\mu =\cos (\theta )$ and $\theta$ is the scattering angle],

another type of phase function was used [Eqs. (3)–(4)]: The obtained phase functions, Eqs. (1) and (3), were normalized so that the integral of the phase functions over $\mu$ from $-1$ to 1 was equal to 1. The authors redid their analysis after removing the subset of simulations that had used the incorrectly labeled double HG phase functions [Eqs. (3)–(4)] and adding simulations with the correct double HG phase functions [Eqs. (1)–(2)]. Based on the parameters in Table 1 and Eqs. (1)–(2), this resulted in 144 simulations with double HG phase functions (rather than 177, as originally reported on p. 050501-2).

Table 2 and Fig. 2 based on the simulations with the correct double HG phase functions (and the simulations with mHG, MPC and RMC phase functions from the original paper) are shown here. For ${\mu }_s^{\prime }{d}_{\det }=1$, the lowest reflectance values increased and, therefore, the variability (Table 2) was calculated for the new (higher) minimum reflectance value.

Table 2

Variability of RpNA, σ and γ for μs′ddet=0.1 and μs′ddet=1, defined as the spread in RpNA, σ and γ values for a chosen reflectance (±10%) relative to the total range of each parameter.

Based on these new simulations, the authors note that, although the values of the variability of $R_{pNA}$, $\sigma$ and $\gamma$ have changed, the overall conclusion that $R_{pNA}$ improves prediction of the reflectance holds, nonetheless.

This article was corrected online on 3 June 2019.