Front. Comput. Sci. Frontiers in Computer Science Front. Comput. Sci. 2624-9898 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fcomp.2022.1093379 Computer Science Correction Corrigendum: Visualizing uncertainty for non-expert end users: The challenge of the deterministic construal error Joslyn Susan 1 * Savelli Sonia 2 1Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States 2Human Centered Design and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States

Edited and reviewed by: Roberto Therón, University of Salamanca, Spain

 *Correspondence: Susan Joslyn susanj@uw.edu

This article was submitted to Human-Media Interaction, a section of the journal Frontiers in Computer Science

 05 12 2022 2022 4 1093379 08 11 2022 16 11 2022 Copyright © 2022 Joslyn and Savelli. 2022 Joslyn and Savelli

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

 A corrigendum on Visualizing uncertainty for non-expert end users: The challenge of the deterministic construal error by Joslyn, S., and Savelli, S. (2021). Front. Comput. Sci. 2:590232. doi: 10.3389/fcomp.2020.590232 visualizations uncertainty decision making risk perception judgment experimental psychology

In the published article, there was an error in Figures 1B,F as published. The definition in Figure 1B read “There is an 80% chance that the daytime high will be equal to or greater than 44F and equal to or less than or equal to 38F.” The definition was partly in error and should have read, “80% chance that the daytime high will be between 38F and 44F.” The nighttime low temperature bar was colored yellow. It should have been blue.

Predictive intervals, each accompanied by a key (shown in a) describing “41°F” as the “best forecast.” Font and figure sizes are slightly smaller than they were in the original experiments to conform to journal requirements.

The definition in Figure 1F was a frequency version reading, “On 8 out of 10 days like this, the observed temperature will fall between these two values”. It should have been a probabilistic version, “80% chance that the daytime high will be between these two values” to align to the other probabilistic versions used in this figure.

In addition, we added a note to the caption to inform readers that small changes in font and figure sizes were made to the versions published here to conform to journal requirements.

The corrected Figure 1 and its caption appear below. Figure 1. Predictive intervals, each accompanied by a key (shown in a) describing “41°F” as the “best forecast.” Font and figure sizes are slightly smaller than they were in the original experiments to conform to journal requirements.

The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.