Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-rz424 Total loading time: 0.34 Render date: 2021-03-07T14:45:00.424Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Prospective Memory After Stroke: A Scoping Review – CORRIGENDUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2018

Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Image of the first page of this article
Type
Corrigendum
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment 2018 

The authors would like to apologise for several errors in the above publication. All errors relate to multiple misreports of the significance of findings from a single study by Barr (2011).

In the first paragraph of p. 12, the following was noted:

The studies examining event-based PM resulted in mixed findings, with two of the studies reporting significantly poorer event-based PM performance for participants with stroke compared to controls (Brooks et al., 2004; Man, Chan & Yip, 2014), and the other four reporting no significant differences between the individuals with stroke and controls (Barr, 2011; Cheng, Tian, Hu, Wang, & Wang, 2010; Kant et al., 2014; Kim, Craik et al., 2009).

The paragraph should in fact read:

The studies examining event-based PM resulted in mixed findings, with three of the studies reporting significantly poorer event-based PM performance for participants with stroke compared to controls (Barr, 2011; Brooks et al., 2004; Man, Chan & Yip, 2014), and the other three reporting no significant differences between the individuals with stroke and controls (Cheng, Tian, Hu, Wang, & Wang, 2010; Kant et al., 2014; Kim, Craik et al., 2009).

In the same paragraph, another error has been noted:

Results seemed to be dependent on the type of measure used. Significant findings were found when utilising a VR paradigm (Brooks et al., 2004), a naturalistic task (remembering to ask for a written explanation at the end; Brooks et al., 2004), and the Cambridge Prospective Memory Task - Hong Kong Chinese Version (CAMPROMPT-HKCV; Man, Chan & Yip, 2014). No significant differences were found when using another naturalistic task (remembering to ask for a belonging back; Brooks et al., 2004; Kant et al., 2014; Kim, Craik et al., 2009), the Virtual Week (Kim, Craik et al., 2009), the original version of the CAMPROMPT (Barr, 2011) or experimental/laboratory measures (Cheng et al., 2010; Kant et al., 2014).

This should in fact read:

Results seemed to be dependent on the type of measure used. Significant findings were found when utilising a VR paradigm (Brooks et al., 2004), a naturalistic task (remembering to ask for a written explanation at the end; Brooks et al., 2004), and the Cambridge Prospective Memory Task - Hong Kong Chinese Version (CAMPROMPT-HKCV; Man, Chan & Yip, 2014) and original CAMPROMPT (Barr, 2011). No significant differences were found when using another naturalistic task (remembering to ask for a belonging back; Brooks et al., 2004; Kant et al., 2014; Kim, Craik et al., 2009), the Virtual Week (Kim, Craik et al., 2009), or experimental/laboratory measures (Cheng et al., 2010; Kant et al., 2014).

In the second paragraph of p. 12, it was said that:

Three studies examining time-based PM reported significantly poorer performance for individuals with stroke compared to controls (Cheng et al., 2010; Kim, Craik et al., 2009; Man, Chan & Yip, 2014).

This is incorrect and should instead read:

Four studies examining time-based PM reported significantly poorer performance for individuals with stroke compared to controls (Barr, 2011; Cheng et al., 2010; Kim, Craik et al., 2009; Man, Chan & Yip, 2014).

Also in the second paragraph of p. 12, it was noted that:

Another two studies reported no significant differences between the groups’ PM performances (Barr, 2011; Brooks et al., 2004), and one reported mixed findings dependent on the measure used (Kant et al., 2014).

This is also incorrect and should instead read:

Another study reported no significant differences between the groups’ PM performances (Brooks et al., 2004), and one reported mixed findings dependent on the measure used (Kant et al., 2014).

There was an additional third error in the second paragraph of p. 12, where it was observed:

As with the event-based PM, findings were dependent on the type of measure utilised. Significant differences were found when using the CAMPROMPT-HKCV (Man, Chan & Yip, 2015), Virtual Week (Kim, Craik et al., 2009), and experimental/laboratory measures PM (Cheng et al., 2010; Kant et al., 2014), however no significant differences were found when utilising a VR platform (Brooks et al., 2004), the original version of the CAMPROMPT (Barr, 2011) and a naturalistic task (making a phone call after 30 minutes; Kant et al., 2014).

This sentence should read:

As with the event-based PM, findings were dependent on the type of measure utilised. Significant differences were found when using the CAMPROMPT-HKCV (Man, Chan & Yip, 2015), original CAMPROMPT (Barr, 2011), Virtual Week (Kim, Craik et al., 2009), and experimental/laboratory measures PM (Cheng et al., 2010; Kant et al., 2014), however no significant differences were found when utilising a VR platform (Brooks et al., 2004), and a naturalistic task (making a phone call after 30 minutes; Kant et al., 2014).

Finally, errors regarding Barr (2011) have been noted in Table 1. A corrected version is on previous page.

TABLE 1 Observational Studies

m = male; f = female; LH = left hemisphere; RH = right hemisphere; BL = bilateral damage; PRMQ = Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire; CAMPROMPT = Cambridge Prospective Memory Test; CAMPROMPT - HKCV = Cambridge Prospective Memory Test – Hong Kong Chinese Version; RPA-ProMem = Royal Prince Alfred Prospective Memory Test; BAPM = Brief Assessment of Prospective Memory. TBPM = Time-based PM; EBPM = event-based PM; ABPM = activity-based PM. Effect sizes (Hu, 2010) measured using Cohen's d are interpreted using the following criteria: 0.2; medium = 0.5; or large = 0.8. Cohen (1988) suggested effect sizes be interpreted in term of small (0.1), medium (0.3), and large (0.5) when calculated using phi (φ), and small (0.01), medium (0.09), and large (0.25) when calculated using partial-eta squared (ηp2).

References

Hogan, C., Fleming, J., Cornwell, P., and Shum, D. (2016) “Prospective Memory After Stroke: A Scoping Review,” Brain Impairment. Cambridge University Press, 17 (2), pp. 123142. doi: 10.1017/BrImp.2016.12.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 39
Total number of PDF views: 194 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 06th September 2018 - 7th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Prospective Memory After Stroke: A Scoping Review – CORRIGENDUM
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Prospective Memory After Stroke: A Scoping Review – CORRIGENDUM
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Prospective Memory After Stroke: A Scoping Review – CORRIGENDUM
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *