In the original article published in the November issue 1, an arithmetic mistake introduced a systematic error in the stated results. The authors would also like to note that in the methods section, for the colour of the target, the percentages should be 20% for the infrequent colour and 80% for the frequent colour instead of 25% and 75%, respectively. Importantly, the interpretations and outcomes of all statistics remain the same as well as all scientific conclusions. The corrections to the statistics, table, and figure are below.
The authors apologise for these errors.
The overall mean response time (RT) of 627.5 ms (SE=11.2 ms) is corrected to 669.9 ms (SE=12.11). An interaction for between-subject response speed and within-subject response speed was observed: Slower responders showed a larger difference between the slow RT and fast RT trials (ΔRT=241.2 ms) in comparison with fast responders (ΔRT=135.6 ms), F (1, 86)=37.05, P<0.0001.
Fast responders showed an earlier and larger N2pc in comparison with slow responders [amplitude: F (1, 86)=4.35, P<0.04; latency: F (1, 86)=5.08, P<0.03]. Fast response trials also had a larger and earlier N2pc in comparison with slow response trials [amplitude: F (1,86)=21.34, P<0.0001; latency: F (1, 86)=8.95, P<0.004]. No interaction was observed for amplitude (F (1, 86)=0.80, P=0.37) or latency (F (1, 86)=1.38, P=0.24). Both N2pc amplitude and latency were positively correlated with RT (r=0.33, P<0.002; r=0.23, P<0.04, respectively). Fast responders showed a higher mean variance in the N2pc amplitude than slow responders (fast responders SE=0.24; slow responders SE=0.16), scaling with the mean. For N2pc latency, slow responders had a higher mean variance than fast responders (fast responders SE=3.44; slow responders: SE=3.72) (Table 1 and Fig. 2).
1. Drisdelle BL, West GL, Jolicoeur P. The deployment of visual spatial attention during visual search predictsresponse time: electrophysiological evidence from the N2pc. Neuroreport 2016; 27:1237–1242.