Prospective Memory After Stroke: A Scoping Review – CORRIGENDUM

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 theCambridge Prospective Memory Task -HongKong ChineseVersion (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 VirtualWeek (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).