Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Correction to: Memory & Cognition
The original publication included the following errors which were left uncorrected in the proofing process: 1) in the last paragraph of the Introduction, the sentence “adaptation to conflict may have been the only option at their disposal in those conditions” should have been “adaptation to conflict frequency”, etc.; 2) in the second paragraph of the Materials, the examples provided for low-contingency and high-contingency incongruent items in the MI set (i.e., BLUE in green and BLUE in white, respectively), should have been reversed (i.e., BLUE in white and BLUE in green, respectively); 3) in Table 1, the word in the last column, “YELLOW”, should have been “WHITE”; 4) in Table 3, the first “High contingency MI items” column should have been under RTs, not error rates; 5) in the Results, MSE values were incorrectly reported.
The original article has been corrected.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
The online version of the original article can be found at https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00980-y
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Spinelli, G., Lupker, S.J. Correction to: Item-specific control of attention in the Stroop task: Contingency learning is not the whole story in the item-specific proportion-congruent effect. Mem Cogn 48, 884 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01020-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01020-w