Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 197, Issue 2, pp 205–205 | Cite as

Evidence for an attentional component in saccadic inhibition of return

  • David SoutoEmail author
  • Dirk Kerzel
Erratum
  • 329 Downloads

Erratum to: Exp Brain Res (2009) 195:531–540 DOI 10.1007/s00221-009-1824-3

There was a mistake when referring to invalid and valid conditions. In Table 1 we inverted the “invalid” and “valid” labels. In contrast to what is shown in Table 1, reaction times (RTs) were always longer in the valid condition. In the main text, IOR was defined as RT in valid trials minus RT in invalid trials, and therefore positive values were obtained. In the legends of Table 1, Figs. 2 and 3, we erroneously stated that IOR was defined as “invalid RT minus valid RT”, which should lead to negative values. Finally, when referring to the RT distributions shown in Fig. 2c, the valid trials distribution is shifted rightward and not leftward. We would like to thank Anna Montagnini for pointing out these mistakes to us.

The correct Table 1 is given below:
Table 1

Mean reaction time (RT) and between-subject standard error of the mean in Experiments 1 and 2 in the format M ± SE. Inhibition of return (IOR) is the difference between valid and invalid conditions

 

Experiment 1 (N = 22)

Saccadic RT (ms)

Manual RT (ms)

Valid

Invalid

IOR

Valid

Invalid

IOR

Gap

 High contrast

178 ± 6

155 ± 6

23

319 ± 9

298 ± 8

21

 Low contrast

228 ± 10

187 ± 7

41

365 ± 10

336 ± 9

29

Overlap

 High contrast

231 ± 8

207 ± 6

24

325 ± 10

312 ± 8

13

 Low contrast

274 ± 9

241 ± 8

33

372 ± 10

349 ± 9

23

 

Experiment 2 (N = 18, saccadic responses)

Light background

Dark background

Valid

Invalid

IOR

Valid

Invalid

IOR

Step

 High contrast

212 ± 9

189 ± 8

23

203 ± 8

181 ± 5

22

 Low contrast

258 ± 10

211 ± 8

47

211 ± 8

192 ± 6

19

Overlap

 High contrast

246 ± 12

204 ± 8

42

237 ± 12

206 ± 9

31

 Low contrast

305 ± 15

262 ± 11

43

276 ± 14

219 ± 9

57

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculté de Psychologie et Sciences de l’ÉducationUniversité de GenèveGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations