Author Correction: Best humans still outperform artificial intelligence in a creative divergent thinking task
Mika Koivisto, Simone Grassini
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Correction to: Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-023-40858-3, published online 14 September 2023
The original version of this Article contained errors in the Results, under the subheading ‘Overall human and AI performance’, where the data analysis related to Figure 2D was incorrect due to an error in the data analysis code.
As a result,
“Additionally, the max scores were higher for AI than humans (Fig. 2D), B = 0.453, SE = 0.082, CI [0.286, 0.613], t(282) = 5.495, p < 0.001. Fluency decreased the max scores, B = −0.088, SE= 0.023, CI [−0.133, −0.043], t(283) = −3.877, p < 0.001.”
now reads:
“Additionally, the max scores were higher for AI than humans (Fig. 2D), B = 0.403, SE = 0.091, CI [0.226, 0.581], t(280) = 4.444, p < 0.001. Fluency increased the max scores, B = 0.139, SE= 0.025, CI [0.090, 0.188], t(282) = 5.533, p < 0.001.”
The original Article has been corrected.