The authors would like to apologise for several errors in the above publication. All errors relate to multiple misreports of the significance of findings from a single study by Barr (2011).
In the first paragraph of p. 12, the following was noted:
The studies examining event-based PM resulted in mixed findings, with two of the studies reporting significantly poorer event-based PM performance for participants with stroke compared to controls (Brooks et al., 2004; Man, Chan & Yip, 2014), and the other four reporting no significant differences between the individuals with stroke and controls (Barr, 2011; Cheng, Tian, Hu, Wang, & Wang, 2010; Kant et al., 2014; Kim, Craik et al., 2009).
The paragraph should in fact read:
The studies examining event-based PM resulted in mixed findings, with three of the studies reporting significantly poorer event-based PM performance for participants with stroke compared to controls (Barr, 2011; Brooks et al., 2004; Man, Chan & Yip, 2014), and the other three reporting no significant differences between the individuals with stroke and controls (Cheng, Tian, Hu, Wang, & Wang, 2010; Kant et al., 2014; Kim, Craik et al., 2009).
In the same paragraph, another error has been noted:
Results seemed to be dependent on the type of measure used. Significant findings were found when utilising a VR paradigm (Brooks et al., 2004), a naturalistic task (remembering to ask for a written explanation at the end; Brooks et al., 2004), and the Cambridge Prospective Memory Task - Hong Kong Chinese Version (CAMPROMPT-HKCV; Man, Chan & Yip, 2014). No significant differences were found when using another naturalistic task (remembering to ask for a belonging back; Brooks et al., 2004; Kant et al., 2014; Kim, Craik et al., 2009), the Virtual Week (Kim, Craik et al., 2009), the original version of the CAMPROMPT (Barr, 2011) or experimental/laboratory measures (Cheng et al., 2010; Kant et al., 2014).
This should in fact read:
Results seemed to be dependent on the type of measure used. Significant findings were found when utilising a VR paradigm (Brooks et al., 2004), a naturalistic task (remembering to ask for a written explanation at the end; Brooks et al., 2004), and the Cambridge Prospective Memory Task - Hong Kong Chinese Version (CAMPROMPT-HKCV; Man, Chan & Yip, 2014) and original CAMPROMPT (Barr, 2011). No significant differences were found when using another naturalistic task (remembering to ask for a belonging back; Brooks et al., 2004; Kant et al., 2014; Kim, Craik et al., 2009), the Virtual Week (Kim, Craik et al., 2009), or experimental/laboratory measures (Cheng et al., 2010; Kant et al., 2014).
In the second paragraph of p. 12, it was said that:
Three studies examining time-based PM reported significantly poorer performance for individuals with stroke compared to controls (Cheng et al., 2010; Kim, Craik et al., 2009; Man, Chan & Yip, 2014).
This is incorrect and should instead read:
Four studies examining time-based PM reported significantly poorer performance for individuals with stroke compared to controls (Barr, 2011; Cheng et al., 2010; Kim, Craik et al., 2009; Man, Chan & Yip, 2014).
Also in the second paragraph of p. 12, it was noted that:
Another two studies reported no significant differences between the groups’ PM performances (Barr, 2011; Brooks et al., 2004), and one reported mixed findings dependent on the measure used (Kant et al., 2014).
This is also incorrect and should instead read:
Another study reported no significant differences between the groups’ PM performances (Brooks et al., 2004), and one reported mixed findings dependent on the measure used (Kant et al., 2014).
There was an additional third error in the second paragraph of p. 12, where it was observed:
As with the event-based PM, findings were dependent on the type of measure utilised. Significant differences were found when using the CAMPROMPT-HKCV (Man, Chan & Yip, 2015), Virtual Week (Kim, Craik et al., 2009), and experimental/laboratory measures PM (Cheng et al., 2010; Kant et al., 2014), however no significant differences were found when utilising a VR platform (Brooks et al., 2004), the original version of the CAMPROMPT (Barr, 2011) and a naturalistic task (making a phone call after 30 minutes; Kant et al., 2014).
This sentence should read:
As with the event-based PM, findings were dependent on the type of measure utilised. Significant differences were found when using the CAMPROMPT-HKCV (Man, Chan & Yip, 2015), original CAMPROMPT (Barr, 2011), Virtual Week (Kim, Craik et al., 2009), and experimental/laboratory measures PM (Cheng et al., 2010; Kant et al., 2014), however no significant differences were found when utilising a VR platform (Brooks et al., 2004), and a naturalistic task (making a phone call after 30 minutes; Kant et al., 2014).
Finally, errors regarding Barr (2011) have been noted in Table 1. A corrected version is on previous page.
TABLE 1 Observational Studies
m = male; f = female; LH = left hemisphere; RH = right hemisphere; BL = bilateral damage; PRMQ = Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire; CAMPROMPT = Cambridge Prospective Memory Test; CAMPROMPT - HKCV = Cambridge Prospective Memory Test – Hong Kong Chinese Version; RPA-ProMem = Royal Prince Alfred Prospective Memory Test; BAPM = Brief Assessment of Prospective Memory. TBPM = Time-based PM; EBPM = event-based PM; ABPM = activity-based PM. Effect sizes (Hu, 2010) measured using Cohen's d are interpreted using the following criteria: 0.2; medium = 0.5; or large = 0.8. Cohen (1988) suggested effect sizes be interpreted in term of small (0.1), medium (0.3), and large (0.5) when calculated using phi (φ), and small (0.01), medium (0.09), and large (0.25) when calculated using partial-eta squared (ηp2).
