Front. Hum. Neurosci. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience Front. Hum. Neurosci. 1662-5161 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1221303 Human Neuroscience Correction Corrigendum: Twenty-four-hour time-use composition and cognitive function in older adults: cross-sectional findings of the ACTIVate study Mellow Maddison L. 1 * Dumuid Dorothea 1 Wade Alexandra T. 1 Stanford Ty 1 Olds Timothy S. 1 Karayanidis Frini 2 3 Hunter Montana 2 3 Keage Hannah A. D. 4 Dorrian Jillian 4 Goldsworthy Mitchell R. 5 6 Smith Ashleigh E. 1 1Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity, Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia 2Functional Neuroimaging Laboratory, School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia 3Healthy Minds Research Program, Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI), Newcastle, NSW, Australia 4Behaviour-Brain-Body Research Centre, Justice and Society, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia 5Lifespan Human Neurophysiology Group, School of Biomedicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia 6Hopwood Centre for Neurobiology, Lifelong Health Theme, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, SA, Australia

Edited and reviewed by: Ryan Stanley Falck, University of British Columbia, Canada

 *Correspondence: Maddison L. Mellow maddison.mellow@mymail.unisa.edu.au 09 06 2023 2023 17 1221303 12 05 2023 26 05 2023 Copyright © 2023 Mellow, Dumuid, Wade, Stanford, Olds, Karayanidis, Hunter, Keage, Dorrian, Goldsworthy and Smith. 2023 Mellow, Dumuid, Wade, Stanford, Olds, Karayanidis, Hunter, Keage, Dorrian, Goldsworthy and Smith

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 Twenty-four-hour time-use composition and cognitive function in older adults: cross-sectional findings of the ACTIVate study by Mellow, M. L., Dumuid, D., Wade, A. T., Stanford, T., Olds, T. S., Karayanidis, F., Hunter, M., Keage, H. A. D., Dorrian, J., Goldsworthy, M. R., and Smith, A. E. (2022). Front. Hum. Neurosci. 16:1051793. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.1051793 time use cognitive function ageing sleep sedentary behaviour physical activity section-at-acceptance Brain Health and Clinical Neuroscience

In the published article, there were several errors in Table 2 as published. The mean ACE-III scores presented for Adelaide participants, Newcastle participants and the total sample were presented incorrectly due to errors in the calculation of ACE-III scores. The corrected Table 2 and its caption appear below.

Participant demographics.

Variable Level Adelaide (n = 207) Newcastle (n = 177) Total (n = 384)
Age 65.6 ± 2.8 65.4 ± 3.2 65.5 ± 3.0
Sex Female 165 98 263
Male 42 79 121
Education (years) 16.3 ± 3.3 16.7 ± 3.2 16.5 ± 3.2
Smoking status Current smoker 84 (41%) 59 (33%) 143 (37%)
Previous smoker 7 (3%) 0 (0%) 7 (2%)
Never smoked 116 (56%) 118 (67%) 234 (61%)
Device-measured PA levels (min/day) MVPA 91 ± 46 86 ± 47 89 ± 47
LPA 178 ± 48 178 ± 52 178 ± 50
SB 657 ± 90 682 ± 87 668 ± 90
Sleep 513 ± 59 492 ± 53 503 ± 57
Sleep quality rating Good 165 (79.7%) 149 (84.2%) 314 (81.6%)
Bad 42 (20.3%) 28 (15.8%) 70 (18.8%)
Recreational PA (min/day) “None” 0 0 0
“ < 30” 21 ± 8 17 ± 8 19 ± 8
“>30” 80 ± 49 81 ± 59 80 ± 53
TV watching (min/day) High 223 ± 48 225 ± 67 224 ± 59
Medium 128 ± 21 123 ± 17 126 ± 20
Low 43 ± 28 47 ± 33 44 ± 30
ACE-III score 95.8 ± 3.1 94.2 ± 3.9 95.1 ± 3.6

Values are presented as either mean ± SD for numeric variables or count (percentage) for categorical variables. Recreational physical activity (PA) and TV watching data are presented as the mean ± SD minutes per day spent in respective activities.

MVPA, moderate-vigorous physical activity; LPA, light physical activity; SB, sedentary behaviour; PME, perceived mental effort; ACE-III, Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III.

In the published article, there were several errors in Table 3 as published. Correlations between executive function and other outcomes were incorrect due to an error in the calculation of the executive function composite score, and correlations between ACE-III score and other outcomes were incorrect due to minor errors in the calculation of the ACE-III scores. The corrected Table 3 and its caption appear below.

Pairwise correlations between time-use variables and cognitive outcomes.

ACE-III Long-term memory Short-term memory Executive function Processing speed Sleep (min) SB (min) LPA (min)
Long-term memory 0.22**
Short-term memory 0.31** 0.57**
Executive function 0.16** 0.22** 0.21**
Processing speed 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.03
Sleep (min) 0.00 −0.11* −0.06 0.02 0.00
SB (min) 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.01 −0.13* −0.45**
LPA (min) −0.04 0.02 −0.01 −0.05 0.06 −0.16** −0.68**
MVPA (min) 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.17** −0.14** −0.65** 0.43**

Data are presented as Pearson correlation coefficients (r). Bold denotes that the p-value is statistically significant.

Denotes p-values ≤ 0.05.

Denotes p-values ≤ 0.01.

ACE-III, Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III; SB, sedentary behaviour; LPA, light physical activity; MVPA, moderate to vigorous physical activity.

In the published article, there were several errors in Table 4 as published. ANOVA type II F-test outcomes for executive function were incorrect due to an error in the calculation of the executive function composite score, and ANOVA type II F-test outcomes for ACE-III score were incorrect due to errors in the calculation of ACE-III scores. The corrected Table 4 and its caption appear below.

Statistical output of ANOVA type II F-tests for cognitive outcomes.

Global cognition Long-term memory Short-term memory Executive function Processing speed
F(n, d) p-value adj.p F(n, d) p-value adj.p F(n, d) p-value adj.p F(n, d) p-value adj.p F(n, d) p-value adj.p
Age 0.68(1, 372) 0.41 0.54 1.18(1, 354) 0.28 0.32 2.52(1, 293) 0.11 0.31 29.16(1, 357) < 0.01 < 0.01* 7.74(1, 359) ≤0.01 0.05
Sex 1.20(1, 372) 0.27 0.44 3.98(1, 354) 0.05 0.13 0.05(1, 293) 0.81 0.81 15.73(1, 357) < 0.01 < 0.01* 0.17(1, 359) 0.68 0.96
Site 15.20(1, 372) ≤0.01 ≤0.01* 5.19(1, 354) 0.02 0.09 6.14(1, 293) 0.01 0.11 0.70(1, 357) 0.40 0.49 3.05(1, 359) 0.08 0.24
Smoking status 0.75(2, 372) 0.47 0.54 2.28(2, 354) 0.10 0.17 2.08(2, 293) 0.13 0.31 0.68(2, 357) 0.51 0.51 0.08(2, 359) 0.92 0.96
Education (years) 16.44(1, 372) ≤0.01 ≤0.01* 2.13(1, 354) 0.15 0.19 1.13(1, 293) 0.29 0.45 3.81(1, 357) 0.05 0.10 0.10(1, 359) 0.75 0.96
Sleep quality 3.43(3, 372) 0.06 0.13 0.04(3, 354) 0.85 0.85 0.62(3, 293) 0.43 0.49 0.64(3, 357) 0.43 0.49 0.30(3, 359) 0.58 0.96
TV time (min/day) 2.78(2, 372) 0.06 0.13 2.29(2, 354) 0.10 0.16 1.88(2, 293) 0.15 0.31 0.97(2, 357) 0.38 0.49 0.03(2, 359) 0.97 0.97
Recreational PA (min/day) 0.36(2, 372) 0.70 0.70 5.15(2, 354) ≤0.01 0.05* 1.09(2, 293) 0.34 0.45 3.09(2, 357) 0.05 0.10 1.33(2, 359) 0.27 0.60
Time-use composition – – – – – – – – – – – – 2.87(3, 359) 0.04 0.16

F(n, d) = F statistic, and numerator and denominator degrees of freedom; adj.p = p-value adjusted for false discovery rate. Bold denotes statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05).

Denotes p-values that remained significant after false discovery rate adjustment.

“–” Denotes variables that were not included in final models for respective cognitive outcomes. Interaction terms (for sleep quality, recreational PA or TV watching) were not included in final models for any cognitive outcomes and therefore are not listed in this table.

In the published article, there was an error in Supplementary Material 3 (Table 1). The linear regression output for the global cognition outcome was based on incorrect data due to error in calculation of ACE-III total scores. The correct material appears below.

Global cognition

Final model: global cognition ~ age + sex + site + smoking status + education + sleep quality + TV watching time + recreational physical activity

Variable Level Estimate Std. Error t value p-value
[intercept] 93.94 4.08 23.03 < 0.01
Age −0.05 0.06 −0.83 0.41
Sex Female 0.43 0.39 1.10 0.27
Site Newcastle −1.43 0.37 −3.90 < 0.01
Smoking status Never smoked −0.05 0.36 −0.14 0.88
Previous smoker 1.57 1.33 1.18 0.24
Education (years) 0.22 0.05 4.06 < 0.01
Sleep quality “Good” 0.85 0.46 1.85 0.06
TV watching time Low 1.01 0.43 2.34 0.02
Medium 0.40 0.43 0.93 0.35
Recreational physical activity Under 30 minutes 0.09 0.52 0.18 0.86
Zero −0.25 0.41 −0.60 0.55

In the published article, there was an error in Supplementary Material 3 (Table 4). The linear regression output for the executive function outcome was based on incorrect data (due to error in calculation of executive function composite score). The correct material appears below.

Executive function

Final model: executive function ~ age + sex + site + smoking status + education + sleep quality + TV watching time + recreational physical activity

Variable Level Estimate Std. Error t value p-value
[intercept] 2.98 0.59 5.08 < 0.01
Age −0.05 0.01 −5.40 < 0.01
Sex Female −0.23 0.06 −3.97 < 0.01
Site Newcastle 0.04 0.05 0.84 0.40
Smoking status Never smoked −0.02 0.05 −0.37 0.71
Previous smoker −0.22 0.19 −1.15 0.25
Education (years) 0.16 0.01 1.95 0.05
Sleep quality “Good” 0.05 0.07 0.80 0.43
TV watching time Low −0.06 0.06 −0.91 0.37
Medium −0.09 0.06 −1.38 0.17
Recreational physical activity Under 30 minutes −0.03 0.08 −0.44 0.66
Zero −0.14 0.06 −2.31 0.02

In the published article, a number of statements were made about global cognition and executive functions outcomes which were based on incorrect data. We have now corrected the data and have subsequently altered a number of text sections to reflect the correct findings for global cognition and executive functions outcomes.

A correction has been made to Section 3.1, Participant demographics, paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:

“A number of participants were removed from each analysis due to missing cognitive data: total samples for each cognitive outcome included: n = 372 for global cognition; n = 292 for short-term memory; n = 353 for long-term memory; n = 356 for executive functions; n = 358 for processing speed.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“A number of participants were removed from each analysis due to missing cognitive data: total samples for each cognitive outcome included: n = 384 for global cognition; n = 292 for short-term memory; n = 353 for long-term memory; n = 369 for executive functions; n = 358 for processing speed”.

A correction has been made to Section 3.2.1, Pairwise correlations, paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:

“Pearson correlation coefficients revealed that time spent in sleep was negatively correlated with long term memory (r = −0.11, p = 0.03) and executive function (r = −0.12, p = 0.02), time spent in sedentary behaviour was negatively correlated with processing speed (r = −0.13, p = 0.01), and time spent in MVPA was positively correlated with processing speed (r = 0.17, p < 0.01).”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“Pearson correlation coefficients revealed that time spent in sleep was negatively correlated with long term memory (r = −0.11, p = 0.03), time spent in sedentary behaviour was negatively correlated with processing speed (r = −0.13, p = 0.01), and time spent in MVPA was positively correlated with processing speed (r = 0.17, p < 0.01).”

A correction has been made to Section 3.2.2, Linear regression models, paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:

“Additionally, several covariates were significantly associated with cognitive outcomes: older age was associated with better executive function (β = 0.02) and slower processing speed (β = −0.38); site was negatively associated with global cognition (β = −1.01) and positively associated with long-term memory (β = 0.25) and short-term memory (β = 0.17) (i.e., participants from Newcastle had lower global cognition scores and higher long-term and short-term memory scores than Adelaide); higher education (years) was associated with better global cognition (β = 0.18); and engaging in no recreational physical activity (relative to >30 min) was associated with poorer long-term memory (β = −0.38).”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“Additionally, several covariates were significantly associated with cognitive outcomes: older age was associated with poorer executive function (β = −0.05) and slower processing speed (β = −0.04); site was negatively associated with global cognition (β = −1.43) and positively associated with long-term memory (β = 0.25) and short-term memory (β = 0.17) (i.e., participants from Newcastle had lower global cognition scores and higher long-term and short-term memory scores than Adelaide); higher education (years) was associated with better global cognition (β = 0.22); sex (being female) was negatively associated with executive function (β = −0.23) and engaging in no recreational physical activity (relative to >30 min) was associated with poorer long-term memory (β = −0.38).”

A correction has been made to Section 3.2.2, Linear regression models, paragraph 2. This sentence previously stated:

“After false discovery rate adjustment, none of the associations between 24-h time-use composition and cognitive function outcomes were statistically significant. Associations between age and processing speed, recreational physical activity and long-term memory, as well as education, site and global cognition, remained significant. Unadjusted and adjusted p-values for all variables across each cognitive outcome are displayed in Table 4. Linear regression outputs for each cognitive outcome can be found in Supplementary material 3”.

The corrected sentence appears below:

“After false discovery rate adjustment, none of the associations between 24-h time-use composition and cognitive function outcomes were statistically significant. Associations between age and executive functions, recreational physical activity and long-term memory, sex and executive functions, as well as education, site and global cognition, remained significant. Unadjusted and adjusted p-values for all variables across each cognitive outcome are displayed in Table 4. Linear regression outputs for each cognitive outcome can be found in Supplementary material 3”.

A correction has been made to Section 4.1, 24-hour time use composition and cognitive function in older adults, paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:

“We initially explored pairwise correlations to understand the independent and unadjusted associations between time use variables and cognitive outcomes, in which we found that sleep was negatively correlated with long-term memory and executive function, sedentary behaviour was negatively correlated with processing speed, and MVPA was positively correlated with processing speed. Subsequently, after adjusting for demographic and health factors that are associated with risk of dementia (age, sex, education, smoking status), linear regression models demonstrated 24-h time-use composition was significantly associated with processing speed, but there were no associations with global cognition, long-term memory, short-term memory or executive function.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“We initially explored pairwise correlations to understand the independent and unadjusted associations between time use variables and cognitive outcomes, in which we found that sleep was negatively correlated with long-term memory, sedentary behaviour was negatively correlated with processing speed, and MVPA was positively correlated with processing speed. Subsequently, after adjusting for demographic and health factors that are associated with risk of dementia (age, sex, education, smoking status), linear regression models demonstrated 24-h time-use composition was significantly associated with processing speed, but there were no associations with global cognition, long-term memory, short-term memory or executive function.”

The authors apologize for these errors and state that these do 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.