Lew, F. L., and X. Qu. 2014. “Effects of mental fatigue on biomechanics of slips.” Ergonomics. 10doi: 10.1080/00140139.2014.937771
The authors regret that when this article was first published the definition of RCOF was incorrect. RCOF should be defined by the ratio between resultant horizontal GRF and vertical GRF at peak 3 after heel contact (Lockhart, Smith, and Woldstad Citation2005; Perkins Citation1978). Although Heel contact was defined as the normal force exceeding a threshold value of 50N in this paper, there are many other ways to assess RCOF, and most effective assessment method including the 100N normal force threshold (Chang et al. Citation2012). As a result, the RCOF data presented in Table of the published article were incorrect. The correct version of Table can be seen below.
Table 3 Summary of dependent measures: mean (SD)
The finding on RCOF is the same as reported in the original article, namely that RCOF was significantly higher in the mental fatigue condition than that in the no fatigue condition.
Table has now been corrected in both print and online versions of the article.
The authors apologise for this error.
References
- Chang, W. R., C. C.Chang, and S.Matz. 2012. “Comparison of different methods to extract the required coefficient of friction for level walking.” Ergonomics55 (3): 308–315.
- Lockhart, T. E., J. L.Smith, and J. C.Woldstad. 2005. “Effects of aging on the biomechanics of slips and falls.” Human Factors47: 708–729.
- Perkins, P. J.1978. “Measurement of slip between the shoe and ground during walking.” ASTM STP649: 71–87, 10.1520/STP28738S.