Correction to: Toward a new model for speech perception: the Universal Perceptual Model (UPM) of second language

Correction to: Cognitive Processing (2021) 22:277–289https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-021-01017-6

In the original publication of the article, the author has noticed some errors in the text and figure 4 and this has been corrected in the erratum article as given below:

Fig. 4

Boxplot of contrast discrimination scores by the experimental group

Delete: “for this estimation…below chance” (p. 281)

Add after “the chance score…with 100” the following: “For example, if the script responses include 5 L1 categories, the chance score is 20%. To determine whether a response is above chance, one-sample t-tests are used for the estimation of differences between the chance score and the classification mean percentages of the L2 sounds in each L1 category; if p < 0.05, given that the classification percentage is greater than the chance score, the L1 label is selected more often than chance.

Table 4 (p. 284): Please make numbers “47” and “53” (second row) bold.

Table 7 (p. 286): Please replace “[ɔ-o]control – [o-u]exp” (4^th row) with “[ɔ-o]control – [ɔ-o]exp”.

p. 284: “the next step…phonetic categories”: replace this text with the following: “The next step was to define whether the mappings of Italian vowels to Cypriot Greek categories were above or below chance. Therefore, we conducted t-tests to compare the mean percentage classification of an Italian vowel with each Cypriot Greek response option against the chance score (20%). The results demonstrated that there were significant differences (p < 0.05) in regards to L1 responses [i] and [e] for Italian [e], L1 [e] for Italian [ε], L1 [u] for Italian [o], L1 [o] for Italian [ɔ], and L1 [u] for Italian [u]; thus, all these were above chance responses. The same applied for Italian [i] and [a], as they fitted 100% to a single Cypriot Greek category (see Table 4)”.