Corrigendum
Please note that in this issue, 15(1), of Child Neuropsychology, the paper by Sofia Lindqvist and Lisa Thorell entitled ‘Brief Report: Manipulation of Task Difficulty in Inhibitory Control Tasks’ contains errors with regard to the values of the Go/No-Go task. It was stated that there was a marginally significant effect of prepotency on block two. However, it should be noted that there were no significant effects on the Go/No-Go task. The result section for the Go/No-Go task in has been amended and is presented below. The first section under Results and Discussion should read:
“Descriptive statistics for the performance on the four different conditions of each task are presented in . With regard to the Go/No-Go task, possible differences between the first and second block of this task was first analyzed and the result showed that the children made a significantly larger number of commission errors on the second block, t(76) = 4.19, p < .01, and the scores from the two blocks were therefore analyzed separately. In block one, there were no main effects of prepotency or ISI on commission errors, F(1, 71) = 0.12, ns (μ2 = .002), and F(1, 71) = 1.36, ns (μ2 = .019), respectively. There was no interaction effect, F(1, 71) = 0.32, ns (μ2 = .004). In block two, there were no effects of prepotency, F(1, 71) = 0.28 (μ2 = .004), or ISI, F(1, 71) = 2.77, ns (μ2 = .038). There was no interaction effect, F(1, 71) = 0.99, ns (μ2 = .000).”
Figure 1 Task discriptions, task manipulations, and results.
The first sentence of the second section under Results and Discussion should read: “The finding that the effects on the Go/No-Go task were not significant may reflect a too small of a difference between the levels of the two manipulated parameters.” The fourth sentence of the sixth section under Results and Discussion should be deleted. The conclusions are not affected by the errors. The authors apologize for the errors and for any inconvenience they may have caused.