In the original article, the analyses reported in Tables 3, 4, and 5 were erroneously run on an incomplete dataset (n = 90). The revised analyses utilizing the entire dataset for this study (n = 107) are presented in the revised Tables 3, 4, and 5, as presented below. The pattern of results does not differ between our originally reported statistics and those presented here.
Table 3
| Action LC Models | Strategy LC Models | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | R2 | ΔR2 | F | p | Model | R2 | ΔR2 | F | p |
| 1) Age + Gender | 0.57 | – | 69.3 | <0.01 | 1) Age + Gender | 0.53 | – | 58.82 | <0.01 |
| 2) + Identification | 0.73 | 0.15 | 90.89 | <0.01 | 2) + Duration | 0.62 | 0.09 | 56.66 | <0.01 |
| 3) + Duration | 0.75 | 0.02 | 74.6 | <0.01 | 3) + BSpan | 0.64 | 0.02 | 45.45 | <0.01 |
| Regression Model from Step 3 | Regression Model from Step 3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factors | β | t | p | Factors | β | t | p |
| Age | −0.03 | −10.9 | <0.01 | Age | −0.03 | −9.13 | <0.01 |
| Gender | −0.12 | −1.25 | 0.2 | Gender | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.89 |
| Identification | 0.19 | 3.47 | <0.01 | Duration | 0.19 | 4.8 | <0.01 |
| Duration | 0.13 | 2.79 | 0.01 | BSpan | 0.12 | 2.25 | 0.03 |
Results of stepwise regression across 3 steps.
Details of final regression model from step 3 are provided.
Bold values indicate p < 0.05.
Table 4
| Action LC Models | Strategy LC Models | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | R2 | ΔR2 | F | p | Model | R2 | ΔR2 | F | p |
| 1) Age + Gender | 0.57 | - | 69.3 | <0.01 | 1) Age + Gender | 0.53 | - | 58.82 | <0.01 |
| 2) + Strategy LC | 0.68 | 0.11 | 73.36 | <0.01 | 2) + Action LC | 0.65 | 0.12 | 64.06 | <0.01 |
| 3) + Add. Predictors | 0.78 | 0.10 | 69.55 | <0.01 | 3) + Add. Predictors | 0.68 | 0.03 | 42.3 | <0.01 |
| Regression Model from Step 3 | Regression Model from Step 3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factors | β | t | p | Factors | β | t | p |
| Age | −0.02 | −5.95 | <0.01 | Age | −0.02 | −4.23 | <0.01 |
| Gender | −0.12 | −1.35 | 0.18 | Gender | 0.06 | 0.56 | 0.58 |
| Strategy LC | 0.28 | 3.65 | <0.01 | Tank LC | 0.37 | 3.36 | <0.01 |
| Identification | 0.18 | 3.45 | <0.01 | Duration | 0.10 | 2.22 | 0.03 |
| Duration | 0.08 | 1.78 | 0.08 | BSpan | 0.09 | 1.77 | 0.08 |
Results from follow-up regression models, after controlling for opposite game learning.
Additional predictors in Step 3 were significant predictors from the previous step-wise regressions described in Table 3.
Bold values indicate p <0.05; Italicized values indicate p < 0.10.
Table 5
| Action LC Models | Strategy LC Models | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | R2 | ΔR2 | F | p | Model | R2 | ΔR2 | F | p |
| 1) Gender | 0.01 | – | 1.2 | 0.28 | 1) Gender | 0.01 | – | 0.09 | 0.77 |
| 2) + Age & Add. Preds. | 0.75 | 0.74 | 74.59 | <0.01 | 2) + Age & Add. Preds. | 0.64 | 0.63 | 45.45 | <0.01 |
| 3) + Moderators | 0.76 | 0.01 | 51.34 | <0.01 | 3) + Moderators | 0.65 | 0.01 | 30.36 | <0.01 |
| Regression Model from Step 3 | Regression Model from Step 3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factors | β | t | p | Factors | β | t | p |
| Gender | −0.11 | −1.12 | 0.27 | Gender | 0.02 | 0.18 | 0.85 |
| Age | −0.03 | −9.17 | <0.01 | Age | −0.02 | −6.34 | <0.01 |
| Identification | 0.19 | 3.48 | <0.01 | Duration | 0.21 | 4.82 | <0.01 |
| Duration | 0.15 | 2.98 | <0.01 | BSpan | 0.13 | 2.48 | 0.02 |
| Age * Identification | −0.14 | −1.89 | 0.09 | Age * Duration | 0.09 | 1.07 | 0.29 |
| Age * Duration | 0.16 | 1.74 | 0.06 | Age * BSpan | 0.04 | 0.69 | 0.49 |
Results of moderator analyses.
Bold values indicate p < 0.05; Italicized values indicate p < 0.10.
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Summary
Keywords
video games, genres, learning, life span, working memory, gaming habits
Citation
Smith ET, Bhaskar B, Hinerman A and Basak C (2021) Corrigendum: Past Gaming Experience and Cognition as Selective Predictors of Novel Game Learning Across Different Gaming Genres. Front. Psychol. 12:687696. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.687696
Received
29 March 2021
Accepted
31 March 2021
Published
10 May 2021
Volume
12 - 2021
Edited and reviewed by
Mark J. Campbell, University of Limerick, Ireland
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 Smith, Bhaskar, Hinerman and Basak.
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: Chandramallika Basak cbasak@utdallas.edu
This article was submitted to Cognition, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
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.