The following are corrections for errors that occurred in JINS, Vol. 14, No. 2, March 2008. In the article titled “Visual Hemispatial Neglect, Re-assessed,” pp. 243–256, by Alexandra List et al., there were errors in Tables 3 and 5, and in Figures 6 and 7.
Table 3 (Page 251):
- In row PT5, six numerical values, from Column “CS” in Sessions 1 to “CS” in Session 2, should have been shifted over one column to the right. Those six values, shown in boldface, are now in their correct columns respectively.
- In the table footnotes, the tasks SS, FS, and CS, should not have had the word “scores” included in their definition. These terms, shown in boldface, are now in their correct format.
Testing session times: age (years) and delays post-stroke (days) for each patient
Table 5 (Page 254): In the FSS row, the interval “+30 ms” should have had a double-dagger instead of a double asterisk.
Experiment 2 results when calculating TPTs from means of eight or four reversals and medians of eight reversals
Figure 6 (Page 248): The corrected items are printed in boldface
Three standard fixed-measure paper-and-pencil search tasks [adapted from the Standardized Comprehensive Assessment of Neglect (SCAN); McGlinchey-Berroth et al., 1996]. Each was presented on letter-sized paper, aligned with participant's midline such that items were evenly distributed on the left and right sides. The experimenter marked the central demonstration item before participants searched for the remaining lines in (A) the line cancellation task, the remaining target letter “A”s in (B) the letter search task, or the remaining target symbols ( s) in (C) the symbol search task. As is shown, lines were “cancelled,” that is, marked with a pen stroke, whereas target letters and symbols were circled. Three different patients' performance is shown, and marked with the side of their lesion (RHD = right hemisphere damage; LHD = left hemisphere damage). Asymptomatic performance is illustrated in (A) the line cancellation task, that is, no lines were missed. Right-sided neglect (i.e., more right- than left-sided misses) is illustrated in (B) the letter search task. Note that the patient omitted one target on the right side, and three on the left side. This patient's score for the letter search task would be 2 (three contralesional misses minus one ipsilesional miss). Left-sided neglect (i.e., more than left- than right-sided misses) is illustrated in (C) the symbol search task. Note that the patient omitted six targets on the left side and two on the right side. This patient's score for the symbol search would be 4 (six contralesional misses minus two ipsilesional misses).
Figure 7 (Page 252): The labels for the three sections A, B, and C were missing.
Histograms of patient performance on (A) the fixed-measure Standard Search task, (B) the adaptive Feature Search task, and (C) the adaptive Conjunction Search task. In all plots, positive values indicate contralesional scores (i.e., hemispatial neglect), whereas negative values indicate ipsilesional scores. No differences between contralesional and ipsilesional target detection result in 0 scores. In each plot, data were sorted into 11 bins spanning: 1 item (A), 50 ms (B), and 500 ms (C). Data are shaded according to the patient's lesion side, as are mean scores (indicated by downward-pointing arrows). SSS = Standard Search score; FSS = Feature Search score; CSS = Conjunction Search score; RHD = right hemisphere damage; LHD = left hemisphere damage.
Cambridge University Press and the Editor regret the inconvenience that these errors may have caused.
