Erratum

Abstract

This erratum applies to the following published paper [1]. In Fig. 10(e) and (f) of the published version of the paper, the measured values for the t
_f and T
_l,f (both having values around 1 s for the considered dataset) were interchanged. This erratum includes both the published and corrected versions of Fig. 10 and the related paragraph in the paper's Results section. PUBLISHED VERSION In preview tasks, bandwidth changes yield only minor adaptations in the model parameters, see Fig. 10. Only the average look-ahead time t
_f decreases slightly with bandwidth from around 1.05 to 0.9 s, Fig. 10(e) but with substantial between-participant variability, as indicated by the overlapping confidence intervals. The lower t
_f may not reflect a systematic adaptation to the bandwidth, but a more subtle adaptation to minimize the errors due to the additional high-amplitude sinusoids at 2.5 and 4 rad/s, see also Fig. 8c. The general way in which participants use the available preview for control is, however, not affected by the target signal bandwidth: the target response gain (K
_f ≈ 0.95, Fig. 10(d)) and lag time-constant (T
_{l, f} ≈ 1.15 s, Fig. 10(f)) are approximately invariant. The estimated control dynamics in Fig. 12 show that the target trajectory is tracked almost perfectly at all frequencies below 4 rad/s, mostly because the phase lead due to τ
_f allows for synchronizing the CE output with the target signal (as opposed to pursuit tasks, see Fig. 11, bottom right). Therefore, different-bandwidth target signals provide no incentive for HCs to strongly adapt their control behavior in preview tasks. (Figure Presneted) CORRECTED VERSION In preview tasks, bandwidth changes yield only minor adaptations in the model parameters, see Fig. 10. Only the average target smoothing time-constant T
_{l, f} decreases slightly with bandwidth [from around 1.05 to 0.9 s, Fig. 10(f)], but with substantial between-participant variability, as indicated by the overlapping confidence intervals. The lower T
_{l, f} indicates that slightly more smoothing is applied to reduce tracking of the more high-amplitude high-frequency sinusoids in the 2.5 and 4 rad/s bandwidth signals through the feedforward response, see also Fig. 8(c). The general way in which participants use the available preview for control is, however, not affected by the target signal bandwidth: the target response gain [K
_f ≈ 0.95, Fig. 10(d)] and look-ahead time [τ
_f ≈ 1.15 s, Fig. 10(e)] are approximately invariant. The estimated control dynamics in Fig. 12 show that the target trajectory is tracked almost perfectly at all frequencies below 4 rad/s, mostly because the phase lead due to τ
_f allows for synchronizing the CE output with the target signal (as opposed to pursuit tasks, see Fig. 11, bottom right). Therefore, different-bandwidth target signals provide no incentive for HCs to strongly adapt their control behavior in preview tasks. (Figure presented).