Academic journal article Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Erratum To: The Reliability of Retro-Cues Determines the Fate of Noncued Visual Working Memory Representations

Academic journal article Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Erratum To: The Reliability of Retro-Cues Determines the Fate of Noncued Visual Working Memory Representations

Article excerpt

Eren Gunseli 1 & Dirk van Moorselaar 1 & Martijn Meeter 1 & Christian N. L. Olivers1

Published online: 30 July 2015

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2015

Erratum to: Psychon Bull Rev DOI 10.3758/s13423-014-0796-x

We made two errors in the Introduction of our article Gunseli, van Moorselaar, Meeter, and Olivers (2015). Neither of these affects our arguments, hypotheses, results or conclusions in our view, but may lead to a misconception of earlier work.

1. The validity ratios of two studies were erroneously swapped. We reported a validity ratio of 50% for Landman, Spekreijse, and Lamme (2003) and 66.6% for Rerko and Oberauer (2013), where we intended 66.6% for Landman et al. (2003) and 50% for Rerko and Oberauer (2013).

2. For the study of Matsukura, Luck, and Vecera (2007), we reported a validity ratio of 75%, but this was based on an inconsistency in our calculations. A more consistent calculation yields 73.3% instead.

Note that we calculated the reliability of a particular cue type as the ratio of the number of valid cues over the number of valid plus invalid cues of that cue type. Not all studies we quoted explicitly reported this ratio, as it was not directly relevant to their research question. In supplementary information available from https://www. …

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.