Corrigendum: Can a Word Sound Like a Shape Before You Have Seen It? Sound-Shape Mapping Prior to Conscious Awareness

Original article: Hung, S. M., Styles, S. J., & Hsieh, P.-J. (2017). Can a word sound like a shape before you have seen it? Sound-shape mapping prior to conscious awareness. Psychological Science, 28, 263–275. doi:10.1177/0956797616677313

Note: This is a revised version of the original Corrigendum. Changes were made to this Corrigendum and the associated article on August 10, 2018.

The article originally indicated that in Experiment 1, “participants with accuracy 3 SD or more below the group mean for the location task were removed and replaced prior to analysis” (p. 265). However, the reported results were based on a 2-SD cutoff. Recalculating the analysis with the correct cutoff resulted in a change to the first set of statistics reported in the Results (p. 265), which concerns the comparison of how quickly congruent and incongruent stimuli broke suppression. The new values, which will now be updated, are as follows: t(19) = −2.12, p = .047, Cohen’s d = 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.00, 0.20]. The top panel in Figure 4, which shows results for Experiment 1, will also be updated to reflect the data after the correct 3-SD cutoff was applied. In addition, the effect sizes reported for the comparisons of both groups of participants in Experiment 2 (p. 269) will be updated. The values are as follows—Experiment 2a: Cohen’s d = 0.12, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.19]; Experiment 2b: Cohen’s d = 0.14, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.22].

OPEN IN VIEWER Fig. 4 (top panel).

The following calculation was used to determine the revised Cohen’s d values:

mean difference S D 1 + S D 2 2

Cohen’s ds are very similar regardless of whether experiments are conducted with a within-subjects design, which is how those reported here were originally run, or a between-subjects design. We are updating these effect sizes to facilitate proper replications or meta-analysis in the future. If the same calculations are used as in the original article (Cohen’s d = t / n ), the effect sizes for Experiments 1, 2a, and 2b would be 0.47, 0.51, and 0.48, respectively, after the correct cutoff value is applied. For a recent article on calculating and reporting effect sizes, see Lakens (2014).

The corrections made to the article do not alter the statistical significance of the effect or the interpretation of the results, although it should be noted that these corrected effect sizes are smaller than those reported in the original article.

References

Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 863. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863