This article is a correction to:
Public participation in urban design with augmented reality technology based on indicator evaluation
Yuchen Wang
Yin-Shan LinA Corrigendum on
Public participation in urban design with augmented reality technology based on indicator evaluation
by Wang Y and Lin Y-S (2023). Front. Virtual Real. 4:1071355. doi: 10.3389/frvir.2023.1071355
In the published article, there was five errors in Table 2 as published.
Table 2
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of correct answers in Questionnaire A results.
One column header was displayed as “60-plus.” The correct header is “61-plus.”
One number in the row labeled “26–60” “After” in the column named “Median” was displayed as “6.0”. The correct number is “5.5.”
One number in the row labeled “61-plus” “After” in the column named “Median” was displayed as “5.0”. The correct number is “4.0.”
One row header was displayed as “Range.” The correct header is “Interquartile range.”
One row was missed at the end. Please add one additional row labeled “Range” as follows.
The corrected Table 2 and its caption appear below.
In the published article, there was an error in Table 5 as published.
Table 5
Table 5. Correlation matrix of the questionnaire results.
All data inside the table originally with superscript “a” are actually with superscript “b”, and data originally with superscript “b” are actually with superscript “a”.
The corrected Table 5 and its caption appear below.
In the published article, there was an error. The order of the data descriptions does not correspond to their subject.
A correction has been made to 4 Assessment, 4.2 Results, Paragraph 2. This sentence previously stated:
“equal to 1.80 and 0.91, 1.36 and 0.60, 2.27 and 0.57, and 1.69 and 0.65”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“equal to 1.36 and 0.60, 2.27 and 0.57, 1.69 and 0.65, 1.80 and 0.91”
In the published article, there was an error. The implication of one sentence is not clear and has repetitive words.
A correction has been made to 4 Assessment, 4.2 Results, Paragraph 3. This sentence previously stated:
“For the the number of correct answers in overall situation”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“For the number of correct answers in overall situation before experience”
In the published article, there was an error. The implication of one sentence is not clear.
A correction has been made to 4 Assessment, 4.2 Results, Paragraph 3. This sentence previously stated:
“For other items, the changes of urban forms in diagrams were difficult to correctly answer since users’ familiarity with concepts of most indicators was low.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“For other items, correctly answering questions about the changes in urban forms depicted in diagrams was difficult, since users’ familiarity with the concepts of most indicators was low.”
In the published article, there was an error. Two sentences do not correctly describe the data.
A correction has been made to 4 Assessment, 4.2 Results, Paragraph 4. This sentence previously stated:
“The resultant data after application operation showed a concentrated range of the number of correct answers, from 5.0 to 6.0, representing the overall usability of the platform for each group. The increase of the mean from 2.5 to 5.3 and the median from 2.5 to 5.0 demonstrated that familiarity had the largest improvement among these three groups.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“The data resulting from their experience showed that the number of correct answers was concentrated within a narrower range, from 4.0 to 6.0. The increase in the mean from 2.5 to 5.3 and in the median from 2.5 to 5.5 demonstrated that familiarity had the largest improvement for this group.”
In the published article, there was an error. A phrase was displayed as “to at enhancing” in one sentence is not correct, so the sentence needs to be adjusted.
A correction has been made to 4 Assessment, 4.2 Results, Paragraph 4. This sentence previously stated:
“The relatively higher growth of mean value (2.8, from 2.5 to 5.3) in the 26–60 group than those in other groups demonstrated that the platform was more efficient to at enhancing the familiarity among people at this age.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“The significantly greater increase in the mean value (an increase of 2.8) among the 26–60 age group, compared to other groups, demonstrates that the platform was more effective at enhancing familiarity with the material for individuals in this age range.”
In the published article, there was an error. A sentence does not correctly describe the data.
A correction has been made to 4 Assessment, 4.2 Results, Paragraph 6. This sentence previously stated:
“Since the variance was not large (from 1.67 to 2.11)”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“Since the variance was not large (from 1.51 to 2.35)”
In the published article, there was an error. A sentence does not correctly describe the data.
A correction has been made to 4 Assessment, 4.2 Results, Paragraph 6. This sentence previously stated:
“The correlation between S1 and S12 was the highest (r = 0.708)”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“The correlation between S1 and S12 was one of the highest (r = 0.708)”
In the published article, there was an error in Table 3 as published.
The caption of this table has a word “The” which is not needed.
The corrected caption of Table 3 is “Reliability analysis of Questionnaire B results.”
In the published article, there was an error. A data is not correctly described in a sentence.
A correction has been made to 4 Assessment, 4.2 Results, Paragraph 9. This sentence previously stated:
“S8 had strong correlation with S1 (r = 0.661) and S3 (r = 0.675, p < 0.01)”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“S8 had strong correlation with S1 (r = 0.661) and S3 (r = 0.675, p < 0.05)”
The authors apologize for these errors 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.
Keywords: urban design, mobile augmented reality, public participation and evaluation, urban design indicator, interactive operation
Citation: Wang Y and Lin Y-S (2024) Corrigendum: Public participation in urban design with augmented reality technology based on indicator evaluation. Front. Virtual Real. 5:1424951. doi: 10.3389/frvir.2024.1424951
Received: 29 April 2024; Accepted: 23 July 2024;
Published: 13 August 2024.
Edited and reviewed by:
Naglaa Ali Megahed, Port Said University, EgyptCopyright © 2024 Wang and Lin. 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.
*Correspondence: Yin-Shan Lin, lilianlin003@163.com