In our original paper [1], the caption of Fig. 1 states that the amplitude parameter used to generate the figure is $A = 100$. However, the peak of the Gaussian profile clearly extends to 200, so the caption is in error. The model for generating this figure uses $A = 200$.

In addition, the paper refers to $A$ as the “peak amplitude”. However, a look through the various equations throughout the paper shows that the units of the detection variable $g$ correspond to $A$ multiplied to ${\delta _x}$. Since ${\delta _x}$ is the pixel width (in units of, say, microns), the units of $A$ must therefore be the detection variable (volts, irradiance, unitless, etc., depending on the detection system) divided by length. This change extends to the use of $A$ in all of the paper equations and corrects the units in the variance equations but does not affect any of the paper conclusions.