Correction: Attentional capture effects are modulated by the number of concurrently maintained search goals

There were two incorrect statistics in the original publication. In the original, p = 0.27 was listed twice for two statistics, whose true values were actually p = 0.019 and p = 0.014. The original sentence read: For SC < TA, t₍₂₉₎ = 2.48, p = 0.27, d = 0.132. For TA < DC, t₍₂₉₎ = 2.63, p = 0.27, d = 0.210. For SC < DA, t₍₂₉₎ = 4.35, p < 0.001, d = 0.342.

A correction has been made to the Section 3.3 Reaction time, paragraph 2:

“Mirroring the accuracy analyses, with reaction time (in milliseconds) as the dependent variable, we conducted a 3 × 3 ANOVA using lag 2 data with the factors trial type (TA, SC, and DC) and set size (2, 4, 16) for trials that were correctly responded to. There was a main effect of trial type, with fastest responses to SC trials (M = 368, SE = 23), followed by TA trials (M = 386, SE = 17), and then DC trials (M = 414, SD = 23), F_{(2, 58)} = 11.63, p < 0.001, adj. np2 = 0.286. Post-hoc tests demonstrate that the difference between each condition is significant. For SC < TA, t₍₂₉₎ = 2.48, p = 0.019, d = 0.132. For TA < DC, t₍₂₉₎ = 2.63, p = 0.014, d = 0.210. For SC < DA, t₍₂₉₎ = 4.35, p < 0.001, d = 0.342. Faster responses to SC trials compared to TA and DC trials indicates evidence of attentional set enhancement. There was also a main effect of set size, with faster RTs to set size 16 (M = 342, SE = 23), followed by set size 4 (M = 373, SE = 23), followed by set size 2 (M = 453, SE = 22), F_{(1, 29)} = 15.02, p < 0.001, adj. np2 = 0.341. Post-hoc tests confirm that the difference between set size 2 and set size 4 is significant t₍₂₉₎ = 3.72, p = 0.002, d = 0.59, but the difference between set size 4 and set size 16 is not, t₍₂₉₎ = 1.59, p = 0.121, d = 0.232 (see Figure 6).”

The original version of this article has been updated.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this articler are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited and reviewed by: Mei-Ching Lien, Oregon State University, United States