In the published article, there were several errors in Table 2 as published. The mean ACE-III scores presented for Adelaide participants, Newcastle participants and the total sample were presented incorrectly due to errors in the calculation of ACE-III scores. The corrected Table 2 and its caption appear below.
Table 2
| Variable | Level | Adelaide (n = 207) | Newcastle (n = 177) | Total (n = 384) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 65.6 ± 2.8 | 65.4 ± 3.2 | 65.5 ± 3.0 | |
| Sex | Female | 165 | 98 | 263 |
| Male | 42 | 79 | 121 | |
| Education (years) | 16.3 ± 3.3 | 16.7 ± 3.2 | 16.5 ± 3.2 | |
| Smoking status | Current smoker | 84 (41%) | 59 (33%) | 143 (37%) |
| Previous smoker | 7 (3%) | 0 (0%) | 7 (2%) | |
| Never smoked | 116 (56%) | 118 (67%) | 234 (61%) | |
| Device-measured PA levels (min/day) | MVPA | 91 ± 46 | 86 ± 47 | 89 ± 47 |
| LPA | 178 ± 48 | 178 ± 52 | 178 ± 50 | |
| SB | 657 ± 90 | 682 ± 87 | 668 ± 90 | |
| Sleep | 513 ± 59 | 492 ± 53 | 503 ± 57 | |
| Sleep quality rating | Good | 165 (79.7%) | 149 (84.2%) | 314 (81.6%) |
| Bad | 42 (20.3%) | 28 (15.8%) | 70 (18.8%) | |
| Recreational PA (min/day) | “None” | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| “ < 30” | 21 ± 8 | 17 ± 8 | 19 ± 8 | |
| “>30” | 80 ± 49 | 81 ± 59 | 80 ± 53 | |
| TV watching (min/day) | High | 223 ± 48 | 225 ± 67 | 224 ± 59 |
| Medium | 128 ± 21 | 123 ± 17 | 126 ± 20 | |
| Low | 43 ± 28 | 47 ± 33 | 44 ± 30 | |
| ACE-III score | 95.8 ± 3.1 | 94.2 ± 3.9 | 95.1 ± 3.6 |
Participant demographics.
Values are presented as either mean ± SD for numeric variables or count (percentage) for categorical variables. Recreational physical activity (PA) and TV watching data are presented as the mean ± SD minutes per day spent in respective activities.
MVPA, moderate-vigorous physical activity; LPA, light physical activity; SB, sedentary behaviour; PME, perceived mental effort; ACE-III, Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III.
In the published article, there were several errors in Table 3 as published. Correlations between executive function and other outcomes were incorrect due to an error in the calculation of the executive function composite score, and correlations between ACE-III score and other outcomes were incorrect due to minor errors in the calculation of the ACE-III scores. The corrected Table 3 and its caption appear below.
Table 3
| ACE-III | Long-term memory | Short-term memory | Executive function | Processing speed | Sleep (min) | SB (min) | LPA (min) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-term memory | 0.22** | |||||||
| Short-term memory | 0.31** | 0.57** | ||||||
| Executive function | 0.16** | 0.22** | 0.21** | |||||
| Processing speed | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.03 | ||||
| Sleep (min) | 0.00 | −0.11* | −0.06 | 0.02 | 0.00 | |||
| SB (min) | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.01 | −0.13* | −0.45** | ||
| LPA (min) | −0.04 | 0.02 | −0.01 | −0.05 | 0.06 | −0.16** | −0.68** | |
| MVPA (min) | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.17** | −0.14** | −0.65** | 0.43** |
Pairwise correlations between time-use variables and cognitive outcomes.
Data are presented as Pearson correlation coefficients (r). Bold denotes that the p-value is statistically significant.
Denotes p-values ≤ 0.05.
Denotes p-values ≤ 0.01.
ACE-III, Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III; SB, sedentary behaviour; LPA, light physical activity; MVPA, moderate to vigorous physical activity.
In the published article, there were several errors in Table 4 as published. ANOVA type II F-test outcomes for executive function were incorrect due to an error in the calculation of the executive function composite score, and ANOVA type II F-test outcomes for ACE-III score were incorrect due to errors in the calculation of ACE-III scores. The corrected Table 4 and its caption appear below.
Table 4
| Global cognition | Long-term memory | Short-term memory | Executive function | Processing speed | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F (n, d) | p -value | adj.p | F (n, d) | p -value | adj.p | F (n, d) | p -value | adj.p | F (n, d) | p -value | adj.p | F (n, d) | p -value | adj.p | |
| Age | 0.68(1, 372) | 0.41 | 0.54 | 1.18(1, 354) | 0.28 | 0.32 | 2.52(1, 293) | 0.11 | 0.31 | 29.16(1, 357) | < 0.01 | < 0.01* | 7.74(1, 359) | ≤0.01 | 0.05 |
| Sex | 1.20(1, 372) | 0.27 | 0.44 | 3.98(1, 354) | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.05(1, 293) | 0.81 | 0.81 | 15.73(1, 357) | < 0.01 | < 0.01* | 0.17(1, 359) | 0.68 | 0.96 |
| Site | 15.20(1, 372) | ≤0.01 | ≤0.01* | 5.19(1, 354) | 0.02 | 0.09 | 6.14(1, 293) | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.70(1, 357) | 0.40 | 0.49 | 3.05(1, 359) | 0.08 | 0.24 |
| Smoking status | 0.75(2, 372) | 0.47 | 0.54 | 2.28(2, 354) | 0.10 | 0.17 | 2.08(2, 293) | 0.13 | 0.31 | 0.68(2, 357) | 0.51 | 0.51 | 0.08(2, 359) | 0.92 | 0.96 |
| Education (years) | 16.44(1, 372) | ≤0.01 | ≤0.01* | 2.13(1, 354) | 0.15 | 0.19 | 1.13(1, 293) | 0.29 | 0.45 | 3.81(1, 357) | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.10(1, 359) | 0.75 | 0.96 |
| Sleep quality | 3.43(3, 372) | 0.06 | 0.13 | 0.04(3, 354) | 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.62(3, 293) | 0.43 | 0.49 | 0.64(3, 357) | 0.43 | 0.49 | 0.30(3, 359) | 0.58 | 0.96 |
| TV time (min/day) | 2.78(2, 372) | 0.06 | 0.13 | 2.29(2, 354) | 0.10 | 0.16 | 1.88(2, 293) | 0.15 | 0.31 | 0.97(2, 357) | 0.38 | 0.49 | 0.03(2, 359) | 0.97 | 0.97 |
| Recreational PA (min/day) | 0.36(2, 372) | 0.70 | 0.70 | 5.15(2, 354) | ≤0.01 | 0.05* | 1.09(2, 293) | 0.34 | 0.45 | 3.09(2, 357) | 0.05 | 0.10 | 1.33(2, 359) | 0.27 | 0.60 |
| Time-use composition | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2.87(3, 359) | 0.04 | 0.16 |
Statistical output of ANOVA type II F-tests for cognitive outcomes.
F(n, d) = F statistic, and numerator and denominator degrees of freedom; adj.p = p-value adjusted for false discovery rate. Bold denotes statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05).
Denotes p-values that remained significant after false discovery rate adjustment.
“–” Denotes variables that were not included in final models for respective cognitive outcomes. Interaction terms (for sleep quality, recreational PA or TV watching) were not included in final models for any cognitive outcomes and therefore are not listed in this table.
In the published article, there was an error in Supplementary Material 3 (Table 1). The linear regression output for the global cognition outcome was based on incorrect data due to error in calculation of ACE-III total scores. The correct material appears below.
Global cognition
Final model: global cognition ~ age + sex + site + smoking status + education + sleep quality + TV watching time + recreational physical activity
| Variable | Level | Estimate | Std. Error | t value | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [intercept] | 93.94 | 4.08 | 23.03 | < 0.01 | |
| Age | −0.05 | 0.06 | −0.83 | 0.41 | |
| Sex | Female | 0.43 | 0.39 | 1.10 | 0.27 |
| Site | Newcastle | −1.43 | 0.37 | −3.90 | < 0.01 |
| Smoking status | Never smoked | −0.05 | 0.36 | −0.14 | 0.88 |
| Previous smoker | 1.57 | 1.33 | 1.18 | 0.24 | |
| Education (years) | 0.22 | 0.05 | 4.06 | < 0.01 | |
| Sleep quality | “Good” | 0.85 | 0.46 | 1.85 | 0.06 |
| TV watching time | Low | 1.01 | 0.43 | 2.34 | 0.02 |
| Medium | 0.40 | 0.43 | 0.93 | 0.35 | |
| Recreational physical activity | Under 30 minutes | 0.09 | 0.52 | 0.18 | 0.86 |
| Zero | −0.25 | 0.41 | −0.60 | 0.55 |
In the published article, there was an error in Supplementary Material 3 (Table 4). The linear regression output for the executive function outcome was based on incorrect data (due to error in calculation of executive function composite score). The correct material appears below.
Executive function
Final model: executive function ~ age + sex + site + smoking status + education + sleep quality + TV watching time + recreational physical activity
| Variable | Level | Estimate | Std. Error | t value | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [intercept] | 2.98 | 0.59 | 5.08 | < 0.01 | |
| Age | −0.05 | 0.01 | −5.40 | < 0.01 | |
| Sex | Female | −0.23 | 0.06 | −3.97 | < 0.01 |
| Site | Newcastle | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.84 | 0.40 |
| Smoking status | Never smoked | −0.02 | 0.05 | −0.37 | 0.71 |
| Previous smoker | −0.22 | 0.19 | −1.15 | 0.25 | |
| Education (years) | 0.16 | 0.01 | 1.95 | 0.05 | |
| Sleep quality | “Good” | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.80 | 0.43 |
| TV watching time | Low | −0.06 | 0.06 | −0.91 | 0.37 |
| Medium | −0.09 | 0.06 | −1.38 | 0.17 | |
| Recreational physical activity | Under 30 minutes | −0.03 | 0.08 | −0.44 | 0.66 |
| Zero | −0.14 | 0.06 | −2.31 | 0.02 |
In the published article, a number of statements were made about global cognition and executive functions outcomes which were based on incorrect data. We have now corrected the data and have subsequently altered a number of text sections to reflect the correct findings for global cognition and executive functions outcomes.
A correction has been made to Section 3.1, Participant demographics, paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:
“A number of participants were removed from each analysis due to missing cognitive data: total samples for each cognitive outcome included: n = 372 for global cognition; n = 292 for short-term memory; n = 353 for long-term memory; n = 356 for executive functions; n = 358 for processing speed.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“A number of participants were removed from each analysis due to missing cognitive data: total samples for each cognitive outcome included: n = 384 for global cognition; n = 292 for short-term memory; n = 353 for long-term memory; n = 369 for executive functions; n = 358 for processing speed”.
A correction has been made to Section 3.2.1, Pairwise correlations, paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:
“Pearson correlation coefficients revealed that time spent in sleep was negatively correlated with long term memory (r = −0.11, p = 0.03) and executive function (r = −0.12, p = 0.02), time spent in sedentary behaviour was negatively correlated with processing speed (r = −0.13, p = 0.01), and time spent in MVPA was positively correlated with processing speed (r = 0.17, p < 0.01).”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“Pearson correlation coefficients revealed that time spent in sleep was negatively correlated with long term memory (r = −0.11, p = 0.03), time spent in sedentary behaviour was negatively correlated with processing speed (r = −0.13, p = 0.01), and time spent in MVPA was positively correlated with processing speed (r = 0.17, p < 0.01).”
A correction has been made to Section 3.2.2, Linear regression models, paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:
“Additionally, several covariates were significantly associated with cognitive outcomes: older age was associated with better executive function (β = 0.02) and slower processing speed (β = −0.38); site was negatively associated with global cognition (β = −1.01) and positively associated with long-term memory (β = 0.25) and short-term memory (β = 0.17) (i.e., participants from Newcastle had lower global cognition scores and higher long-term and short-term memory scores than Adelaide); higher education (years) was associated with better global cognition (β = 0.18); and engaging in no recreational physical activity (relative to >30 min) was associated with poorer long-term memory (β = −0.38).”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“Additionally, several covariates were significantly associated with cognitive outcomes: older age was associated with poorer executive function (β = −0.05) and slower processing speed (β = −0.04); site was negatively associated with global cognition (β = −1.43) and positively associated with long-term memory (β = 0.25) and short-term memory (β = 0.17) (i.e., participants from Newcastle had lower global cognition scores and higher long-term and short-term memory scores than Adelaide); higher education (years) was associated with better global cognition (β = 0.22); sex (being female) was negatively associated with executive function (β = −0.23) and engaging in no recreational physical activity (relative to >30 min) was associated with poorer long-term memory (β = −0.38).”
A correction has been made to Section 3.2.2, Linear regression models, paragraph 2. This sentence previously stated:
“After false discovery rate adjustment, none of the associations between 24-h time-use composition and cognitive function outcomes were statistically significant. Associations between age and processing speed, recreational physical activity and long-term memory, as well as education, site and global cognition, remained significant. Unadjusted and adjusted p-values for all variables across each cognitive outcome are displayed in Table 4. Linear regression outputs for each cognitive outcome can be found in Supplementary material 3”.
The corrected sentence appears below:
“After false discovery rate adjustment, none of the associations between 24-h time-use composition and cognitive function outcomes were statistically significant. Associations between age and executive functions, recreational physical activity and long-term memory, sex and executive functions, as well as education, site and global cognition, remained significant. Unadjusted and adjusted p-values for all variables across each cognitive outcome are displayed in Table 4. Linear regression outputs for each cognitive outcome can be found in Supplementary material 3”.
A correction has been made to Section 4.1, 24-hour time use composition and cognitive function in older adults, paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:
“We initially explored pairwise correlations to understand the independent and unadjusted associations between time use variables and cognitive outcomes, in which we found that sleep was negatively correlated with long-term memory and executive function, sedentary behaviour was negatively correlated with processing speed, and MVPA was positively correlated with processing speed. Subsequently, after adjusting for demographic and health factors that are associated with risk of dementia (age, sex, education, smoking status), linear regression models demonstrated 24-h time-use composition was significantly associated with processing speed, but there were no associations with global cognition, long-term memory, short-term memory or executive function.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“We initially explored pairwise correlations to understand the independent and unadjusted associations between time use variables and cognitive outcomes, in which we found that sleep was negatively correlated with long-term memory, sedentary behaviour was negatively correlated with processing speed, and MVPA was positively correlated with processing speed. Subsequently, after adjusting for demographic and health factors that are associated with risk of dementia (age, sex, education, smoking status), linear regression models demonstrated 24-h time-use composition was significantly associated with processing speed, but there were no associations with global cognition, long-term memory, short-term memory or executive function.”
The authors apologize for these errors and state that these do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Statements
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Summary
Keywords
time use, cognitive function, ageing, sleep, sedentary behaviour, physical activity
Citation
Mellow ML, Dumuid D, Wade AT, Stanford T, Olds TS, Karayanidis F, Hunter M, Keage HAD, Dorrian J, Goldsworthy MR and Smith AE (2023) Corrigendum: Twenty-four-hour time-use composition and cognitive function in older adults: cross-sectional findings of the ACTIVate study. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 17:1221303. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1221303
Received
12 May 2023
Accepted
26 May 2023
Published
09 June 2023
Volume
17 - 2023
Edited and reviewed by
Ryan Stanley Falck, University of British Columbia, Canada
Updates
Copyright
© 2023 Mellow, Dumuid, Wade, Stanford, Olds, Karayanidis, Hunter, Keage, Dorrian, Goldsworthy and Smith.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Maddison L. Mellow maddison.mellow@mymail.unisa.edu.au
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.