Corrigendum to “Shielding working-memory representations from temporally predictable external interference” [Cognition 217 (2021) 104915] (Cognition (2021) 217, (S0010027721003383), (10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104915))

We regret that an error occurred in the Introduction section of our original article when referring to Hakim et al.'s (2020) study. Specifically, we incorrectly stated: […] Similar to the perceptual domain, working memory may be more resilient to interference if distraction can be successfully predicted. There is some evidence that expectations about the occurrence of distractors can help counter their negative consequences during working memory. For example, working-memory performance has been shown to improve in conditions where distraction during retention was more likely and could therefore be anticipated, as opposed to those where distraction occurred only rarely (Hakim et al., 2020). However, it remains unclear whether other types of expectations can also mitigate distraction during working memory, or through what processes such mitigation might be mediated. […] The correct version of this paragraph should read as follows: […] Similar to the perceptual domain, working memory may be more resilient to interference if distraction can be successfully predicted. However, previous literature has shown that expectations about the occurrence of distractors do not mitigate the negative effects thereof on memory-guided behaviour. For example, working-memory performance has been found to be unaffected in conditions where distractions during the retention interval were more likely and could therefore be anticipated, as compared to conditions with rare distractions (Hakim et al., 2020). Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether other types of expectations can mitigate distraction during working memory and through which potential processes such mitigation might occur. […] Moreover, we would like to clarify that whenever an interference-onset condition of 2500 ms was mentioned, it should have been stated as 2000 ms after encoding onset. There was no 2500-ms interference-onset condition included in the experiment. These errors appear in the Analysis and Discussion sections as well as in the Supplementary Material. In Fig. 1, the response hand was incorrectly highlighted in the trial schematic (i.e., it should be the left response hand instead of the right). The corrected Fig. 1 should be as follows:[Formula presented] Lastly, an error occurred in the captions of Fig. 5. In the original captions, we stated: Fig. 5. Temporal expectation benefit in the interruption (secondary) task. (A) Reaction times (RTs) to the interrupter were higher for fixed as compared to variable onsets. […] However, RTs to the interrupter were higher for variable onsets compared to fixed onsets. Thus, the correct caption should read as follows:Fig. 5. Temporal expectation benefit in the interruption (secondary) task. (A) Reaction times (RTs) to the interrupter were higher for variable as compared to fixed onsets. […] We would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.