TY - JOUR

T1 - Corrigendum to “Cognitive fatigue effects on physical performance

T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis" [Physiol. Behav. 188(2018) 103-107]

AU - McMorris, Terry

AU - Barwood, Martin

AU - Hale, Beverley J.

AU - Dicks, Matt

AU - Corbett, Jo

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - The authors regret that the below mentioned were missed in the published article. [1], it came to our attention that when calculating variance in effect sizes, we had inadvertently used a formula designed for independent samples while our study only examined within subject designs. Consequently, we have re-analyzed the data using an equation for paired samples. [2], Vd = [1/n + (d2/2n)] ∗ [2(1 − r)], where Vd is variance in the effect size as measured by Cohen's d, n is the number of pairs and r is the estimated correlation between pairs. We estimated r as being 0.85 based on literature examining the test re-test reliability coefficients between performances on tests similar to those used in the studies examined [3–6]. The re-analyzed pooled effect size as measured by Hedges’ g and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of g (g = −0.26, SE = 0.06, CI −0.37 to −0.13, p <.001) only differ marginally from those presented in the article (g = −0.27, SE = 0.12, CI −0.49 to −0.04, p <.05). Similarly, the re-analyzed measures of heterogeneity (Q(10) = 10.45, p >.10, T2 < 0.01, I2 = 0.04) also do not differ much from those presented in the article (Q(10) = 2.78, p >.10. T2 < 0.01, I2 < 0.01). The authors apologize for this mistake but the re-analysis does not affect the scientific discussion and conclusions of the article in any way.

AB - The authors regret that the below mentioned were missed in the published article. [1], it came to our attention that when calculating variance in effect sizes, we had inadvertently used a formula designed for independent samples while our study only examined within subject designs. Consequently, we have re-analyzed the data using an equation for paired samples. [2], Vd = [1/n + (d2/2n)] ∗ [2(1 − r)], where Vd is variance in the effect size as measured by Cohen's d, n is the number of pairs and r is the estimated correlation between pairs. We estimated r as being 0.85 based on literature examining the test re-test reliability coefficients between performances on tests similar to those used in the studies examined [3–6]. The re-analyzed pooled effect size as measured by Hedges’ g and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of g (g = −0.26, SE = 0.06, CI −0.37 to −0.13, p <.001) only differ marginally from those presented in the article (g = −0.27, SE = 0.12, CI −0.49 to −0.04, p <.05). Similarly, the re-analyzed measures of heterogeneity (Q(10) = 10.45, p >.10, T2 < 0.01, I2 = 0.04) also do not differ much from those presented in the article (Q(10) = 2.78, p >.10. T2 < 0.01, I2 < 0.01). The authors apologize for this mistake but the re-analysis does not affect the scientific discussion and conclusions of the article in any way.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047087292&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.05.003

DO - 10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.05.003

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 29776660

AN - SCOPUS:85047087292

SN - 0031-9384

VL - 198

SP - 158

JO - Physiology and Behavior

JF - Physiology and Behavior

ER -