Correction to: Dissociating the capture of attention from saccade activation by subliminal abrupt onsets.

The authors noticed two errors in the program running Experiment 3 of the original article. The errors remained undetected up until now because they concerned the presentation of the abrupt onset cues, which were not visible to the observer. The errors were the following: 1. Different from what is reported in the original article, no abrupt onset cues were presented in Experiment 3’s post-target stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) condition. Instead, only two white discs appeared simultaneously 50 ms after target onset, one to the left and one to the right. 2. Six of the twenty-four participants in Experiment 3 of the original article received the abrupt onset cues in the pre-target SOA condition with an SOA of 16 ms, not with an SOA of 32 ms as reported. The fact that no abrupt onset cues were presented in the post-target SOA condition of Experiment 3 affects the conclusions of the article insofar as the results of Experiment 3’s post-target SOA condition cannot be interpreted with respect to the time course of saccade activation by subliminal onset cues. In the discussion of the article, we have argued that even a transient, short-lived activation of saccades by subliminal abrupt onset cues is unlikely because we did not find effects of abrupt onset cues in the post-target SOA condition. This argument is invalid because no abrupt onset cues were presented in the post-target SOA condition. The possibility that abrupt onset cues led to short lived activation of saccades has thus to be acknowledged. Apart from this, the findings and conclusions of the article remain valid.