It has come to our attention that we did not specify whether the stimulation magnitudes we report in this Article are peak amplitudes or peak-to-peak. All references to intensity given in mA in the manuscript refer to peak-to-peak amplitudes, except in Fig. 2, where the model is calibrated to 1 mA peak amplitude, as stated. In the original version of the paper we incorrectly calibrated the computational models to 1 mA peak-to-peak, rather than 1 mA peak amplitude. This means that we divided by a value twice as large as we should have. The correct estimated fields are therefore twice as large as shown in the original Fig. 2 and Supplementary Figure 11. The corrected figures are now properly calibrated to 1 mA peak amplitude. Furthermore, the sentence in the first paragraph of the Results section 'Intensity ranged from 0.5 to 2.5 mA (current density 0.125-0.625 mA mA/cm2), which is stronger than in previous reports', should have read 'Intensity ranged from 0.5 to 2.5 mA peak to peak (peak current density 0.0625-0.3125 mA/cm2), which is stronger than in previous reports.' These errors do not affect any of the Article's conclusions.