Learning to reach for ‘invisible’ visual input

(Current Biology 21, R493–R494; July 12, 2011) In this Correspondence, we reported a training efficacy advantage for attempts to grasp subjectively ‘‘invisible’’ stimuli, relative to verbal descriptions. The reported statistical analyses for Experiments 1–3 used inappropriate degrees of freedom. We thank Ludwig and colleagues for bringing this to our attention (see http://www.cell.com/current-biology/comments/S0960-9822(11) 00592-6) and apologize to the readership for any confusion caused by these errors. However, appropriate analyses of these data, in conjunction with additional data, support our original conclusions.