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. 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. 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.researchgate.net/profile/Eren_Gunseli we explain our calculations in detail in order to avoid future misunderstanding.