Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
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.researchgate.net/profile/Eren_Gunseli we explain our calculations in detail in order to avoid future misunderstanding.
References
Gunseli, E., van Moorselaar, D., Meeter, M., & Olivers, C. N. (2015). The reliability of retro-cues determines the fate of noncued visual working memory representations. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0796-x
Landman, R., Spekreijse, H., & Lamme, V. A. (2003). Large capacity storage of integrated objects before change blindness. Vision research, 43(2), 149–164.
Matsukura, M., Luck, S. J., & Vecera, S. P. (2007). Attention effects during visual short-term memory maintenance: Protection or prioritization? Perception and Psychophysics, 69(8), 1422–1434.
Rerko, L., & Oberauer, K. (2013). Focused, unfocused, and defocused information in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 1075–1096. doi:10.1037/a0031172
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The online version of the original article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0796-x.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gunseli, E., van Moorselaar, D., Meeter, M. et al. Erratum to: The reliability of retro-cues determines the fate of noncued visual working memory representations. Psychon Bull Rev 22, 1474 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0914-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0914-4