1 Erratum to: Appl Phys B (2017) 123:12 DOI 10.1007/s00340-016-6581-y

In the original version of the article, the shaded band in Fig. 3 representing the theoretical model was omitted. The original article has been revised to provide the correct figure (Fig. 3), which is also shown below.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Experimental violation of the Leggett–Garg inequality in the quantum-to-classical transition. From a to c, distributions at time \(t_3\) of the detected atom at sites D1 and D2 for a waiting time of \({100}\,\upmu \hbox {s},\) corresponding to the solid point in (d) for three different protocols. a Without the \(Q(t_2)\) measurement (left-hand-side protocol in Fig. 2). b With the \(Q(t_2)\) measurement shifting atoms in \(|{\uparrow }\rangle \) away at time \(t_2\) (right-hand-side protocol in Fig. 2). c The same but with atoms in \(|{\downarrow }\rangle \) shifted away. d Values of the Leggett–Garg correlation function K of Eq. (2) for increasing waiting times between the two \(\pi /2\) pulses. Decoherence gradually suppresses the quantum behavior of the atom. The shaded band represents the theoretical quantum-mechanical prediction for coherence times between 75 and \({200}\,\upmu \hbox {s}\) caused by differential scalar light shift [40]. Percentage values are referred to the total number of interrogated atoms in each dataset. The vertical error bars represent \({1}\,\sigma \) statistical uncertainty