Correction to: Serial processing of stimulus identity and shift readiness predictions

Following publication, we discovered that a single participant completed Experiment 2 twice.In our initial published results, each of these sessions was treated as a unique participant.We have rerun all analyses in Experiment 2 with the second session from this participant excluded, and all conclusions remain the same as in our published paper.A mention of a marginal main effect in the block half analysis should be removed, as it was no longer present at p < .10.Additionally, we would like to correct a footnote in our original paper that mistakenly stated that no participants were assigned different groups upon restarting the task.Below, we list the corrections to the footnote and to the numerical values reported in Experiment 2. The footnote, values, tables, and figures have been corrected in the original article.