Article title: Characterization of the motion of booster-seated children during simulated in-vehicle precrash maneuvers
Authors: Valentina Graci, Ethan Douglas, Thomas Seacrist, Jason Kerrigan, Julie Mansfield, John Bolte, Rini Sherony, Jason Hallman, and Kristy B. Arbogast
Journal: Traffic Injury Prevention
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2019.1639160
When the above article was first published online, “Peak lateral head excursion out of the belt” and “Peak lateral trunk excursion into the belt” were switched in . As a result, some data labels and data appeared incorrectly in both the table and the text.
Table 3. Mean (SD) SLA kinematic measures.
The correct table can be found below:
When the above article was first published online, the following sentence in the abstract was written incorrectly: “During the SLA, however, the booster seat moved laterally up to 5 cm in several subjects, contributing substantially to peak head (6.5–11.5 cm) and trunk (9.0–21.4 cm) excursion during the maneuver.”
The corrected sentence should be as follows: “During the SLA, however, the booster seat moved laterally up to 5 cm in several subjects, contributing substantially to peak trunk (6.5–14.0 cm) and head (9.9–21.4 cm) excursion during the maneuver.”
When the above article was first published online, the first two paragraphs in the Slalom section included errors.
The corrected paragraphs should appear as follows: “Overall, both lateral head and trunk excursion decreased with cycles in both directions. The lateral head excursion out of the belt showed statistically significant decreased lateral excursion in cycle 3 versus 1, in particular in repetition 2 versus 1, whereas cycle 3 and four showed reduced lateral excursion compared to cycle 2 in both repetitions (p < .02; ). For trunk out-of-the-belt movement, cycles 3 and four showed reduced lateral trunk excursion compared to cycle 2 (p < .04).
Booster seat lateral displacement ranged between 1.2 and 2.9 cm, representing between 7 and 45% of head and trunk displacement and increased with cycle (; Figure A6, see online supplement).”
When the above article was first published online, the following sentence in the Discussion was written incorrectly: “In contrast, during the lateral acceleration of the slalom, the booster seat moved laterally up to 5 cm in some subjects, representing up to 35% of the head and trunk motion.”
The corrected sentence should be as follows: “In contrast, during the lateral acceleration of the slalom, the booster seat moved laterally up to 5 cm in some subjects, representing up to 45% of the head and trunk motion.”
When the above article was first published online, the following sentences in the Discussion were written incorrectly: “In the maneuver characterized by lateral acceleration (slalom), the trunk moved more than the head, whereas the opposite trend was seen in the braking maneuver. It is possible that booster-seated children strive to keep their head stable to preserve their visual and vestibular sensory information (Graci et al. 2018). In the slalom, the movement into the belt was also slightly greater than that out of the belt. The occupants may have felt less supported in the out-of-the-belt direction (inboard) and relied more on voluntary muscle response to control their kinematics. In line with this interpretation, there was greater muscle activation out of the belt.”
The corrected sentence should be as follows: “In the maneuver characterized by lateral acceleration (slalom), there was greater muscle activation out of the belt.”
When the above article was first published online, the following sentence in the Discussion was written incorrectly: “In contrast, in lateral slalom loading, the booster seat moved more substantially, representing up to one-third of the overall occupant movement.”
The corrected sentence should be as follows: “In contrast, in lateral slalom loading, the booster seat moved more substantially, representing up to one-half of the overall occupant movement.”
When the above article was first published online, affiliation d appeared incorrectly. The correct affiliation is as follows:
Collaborative Safety Research Center, Toyota Motor North America, Ann Arbor, Michigan
The online version has been corrected.