Erratum to: The role of stimulus type in list length effects in recognition memory
- PDF / 58,458 Bytes
- 1 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 63 Downloads / 167 Views
ERRATUM
Erratum to: The role of stimulus type in list length effects in recognition memory Angela Kinnell & Simon Dennis
Published online: 10 January 2013 # Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013
Erratum to: Mem Cogn DOI 10.3758/s13421-011-0164-2 Reports an error in the original article – The role of stimulus type in list length effects in recognition memory (Kinnell & Dennis, 2012, Memory & Cognition, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 311–325). The correction relates to the results of Experiment 1, beginning on page 314, and changes the mean values of d’, the hit rate and the false alarm rate that were reported. The correct means and standard deviations are presented in Table 1. In the original paper, for the within subjects analyses, repeated measures ANOVAs showed that the effect of list length on d’, the hit rate, and the false alarm rate
were not significant. The ANOVA results changed with the correction, but the effect of list length on d’, the hit rate and the false alarm rate all remained nonsignificant. As such, the primary conclusions drawn on the basis of these results do not change. One analysis changed in significance with the correction. After the correction, there was a significant interaction between list length and word frequency for the hit rate (F(1, 39) = .33, p < .05). This interaction effect shows that hit rates for low frequency word pairs are negatively affected by an increase in list length while high frequency word pairs are positively affected. The significance of all other analyses reported in the article did not change as a result of this correction.
Table 1 Mean hit and false alarm rates for short and long lists in Experiment 1 (word pairs). Standard deviations are in parentheses d’
High frequency Low frequency
Hit rate
False alarm rate
Short list
Long list
Short list
Long list
Short list
Long list
.84 (.53) .72 (.71)
.82 (.53) .43 (.79)
.73 (.23) .83 (.23)
.78 (.23) .69 (.28)
.28 (.26) .44 (.30)
.34 (.26) .46 (.33)
The online version of the original article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3758/s13421-011-0164-2. A. Kinnell (*) School of Psychology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia e-mail: [email protected] A. Kinnell Division of Business, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia S. Dennis Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
