Academic journal article Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Erratumto: Visual Working Memory Always Requires Attention

Academic journal article Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Erratumto: Visual Working Memory Always Requires Attention

Article excerpt

Erratum to: Psychon Bull Rev

DOI 10.3758/s13423-012-0313-z

An error in the script used to process the data caused the values in Figs. 2 and 3 and some values in our analysis to be incorrect. In the full analysis of binding versus color features, the effect of retention condition in the first ANOVA reported should be F(2, 196) = 42.91, MSE = 0.02, η2 G = .12. The main effect of retention interval in the full analysis of shape features versus binding should be F(2, 196) = 43.33, MSE = 0.02, η2 G = .13; restricted to only the two-item trials, this effect should be F(2, 196) = 29.62, MSE = 0.04, η2 G = .11. Each of these effects remains statistically significant, with ps < .05.

All of the effects that were originally reported as null remained null after reanalysis.

We conducted new Bayes factor ANOVAs upon discovering these errors, this time sampling 100,000 iterations for better precision. For the binding versus color analysis, the model including main effects of group and retention condition yielded the highest Bayes factor (BF = 112.82), followed by the model including both main effects and their interaction (BF = 106.19). Comparing these two models directly, the evidence provided in the data for the simpler model is greater by a factor of 761:1. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.