In article “Motor Asymmetry in Elite Fencers” by Selcuk Akpinar, Robert L. Sainburg, Sadettin Kirazci, and Andrzej Przybyla (Journal of Motor Behavior, 47, pp. 302–311, doi: 10.1080/00222895.2014.981500) the statistical model reported was inappropriate to the reported design. We report the appropriate statistics below. Reports marked with asterisks show a change in significance from those originally reported. While 4 comparisons of performance variables failed to confirm significance, 3 out of 4 of these comparisons continued to show marginal trends. Our interpretation of results were not altered by these changes, because arm selection patterns remained significantly more symmetric in fencers than nonfencers, and this pattern continued to correspond to group trends in performance measures.
Page 305, §2: Method: Data Analysis
Lines 14–16: “If not, Tukey HSD (honestly significant difference) was used for post-hoc analysis” should read:
“If not, Fisher LSD (least significant difference) was used for post-hoc analysis.”
Page 305, §3: Results: Movement Speed and Duration Were Matched Between Arms and Groups
Lines 3–9: “Our three-way mixed model ANOVA, … , did not reveal a three-way interaction, F(2, 70) = 1.10, p = .33, η2 = .012; a group by arm interaction F(1, 70) = 1.59, p = .21, η2 = .01, or a group by region of space interaction, F(1, 70) = 0.15, p = .21, η2 = .002” should read:
“Our three-way mixed model ANOVA,…, did not reveal a three-way interaction, F(2, 28) = 1.68, p = .20, η2 = .11; a group by arm interaction F(1, 14) = 1.77, p = .20, η2 = .16, or a group by region of space interaction, F(2, 28) = 0.28, p = .75, η2 = .01.”
Lines 10–12: “However, there was a significant region of space by arm interaction, F(1, 70) = 16.66, p = .0001, η2 = .25” should read:
“However, there was a significant region of space by arm interaction, F(2, 28) = 34.42, p = .0001, η2 = .40.”
Lines 21–26: “Similar to the movement speed, the statistical analysis for MT did not reveal a three-way interaction F(2, 158) = 2.69, p = .08, η2 = .04; no two-way interaction between group and arm, F(1, 158) = 2.69, p = .10, η2 = .02; and no two-way interaction between group and region, F(1, 158) = 0.08, p = .91, η2 = .001” should read:
“The statistical results for MT showed a significant three-way interaction * F(2, 28) = 6.87, p = .004 and η2 = .50, but similarly to the movement speed, did not show a two-way interaction between group and arm, F(1, 14) = 4.34, p = .06, η2 = .27; nor a two-way interaction between group and region, F(2, 28) = 0.20, p = .81, η2 = .02.”
Lines 27–28: “However, an interaction between region and arm was significant, F(1, 158) = 20.34, p = .0001, η2 = .32” should read:
“However, an interaction between region and arm was significant, F(2, 28) = 49.88, p = .0001 and η2 = .28.”
Pages 305–306, §4: Results: Effect of Group on Right and Left Arm Performance
Lines 9–13: “We found a significant region by arm interaction F(2, 70) = 3.65, p = .03, η2 = .02, and post-hoc analysis revealed significant right arm advantage for movements to the right region (p = .02, Tukey HSD), as shown in Figure 3A” should read:
“We found a significant region by arm interaction, F(2, 28) = 17.63, p = .0001, η2 = .17; and post-hoc analysis revealed significant right arm advantage for movements to the right region (p = .017, Fisher's LSD), as shown in Figure 3A.”
Lines 13–15 (moving to page 306): “Overall, the right arm was significantly more accurate across both groups and all regions, F(1, 70) = 4.25, p = .04, η2 = .12, as shown in Figure 3B” should read:
“Overall, the right arm accuracy advantage across both groups and all regions, as shown in Figure 3B, was marginal and did not reach significance, * F(1, 14) = 1.04, p = .32, η2 = .07.”
Lines 21–24: “In fact, the left arm of nonfencers showed substantially larger errors than their right arm or either arm of fencers (p < .02, Tukey HSD), see Figure 2C” should read:
“In fact, the left arm of nonfencers showed a trend for larger errors than either arm of fencers that did not reach significance * (p < 0.08, Fisher's LSD), see Figure 2C.”
Lines 25–29: “Thus, performance was more symmetric for fencers, and more asymmetrically associated with right arm performance for nonfencers, as confirmed by significant interaction between arm and group, F(1, 70) = 3.94, p = .05, η2 = .11” should read:
“The averaged data shown in Figure 3C indicated a trend toward more symmetric performance for fencers, but did not yield a significant two-way interaction between arm and group * F(1, 14) = 0.96, p = .32 and η2 = .06.”
Page 306, §1: Results: Effect of Group on Right and Left Arm Performance
Lines 5–8: “Similarly to FPE results, our ANOVA showed a significant interaction between group and arm, F(2, 70) = 5.63, p = .02, η2 = .09, which is shown in Figure 5” should read:
“Similarly to FPE results, the two-way interaction between arm and group was not significant, * F(1, 14) = 1.34, p = .26, η2 = .07, but the averaged data shown in Figure 5 indicate a more symmetric trend for fencers than nonfencers.”
Line 17: “(p < .01, Tukey HSD)” should read: (p < .03, Fisher's LSD).
Page 307, §1: Results: Effect of Group on Arm Selection Symmetry
Line 15: “F(2, 70) = 9.41, p = .0002, η2 = .02” should read:
F(2, 28) = 6.64, p = .004, η2 = .47