Corrigendum to “Self-face processing in relation to self-referential tasks in 24-month-old infants: A study through eye movements and pupillometry measures”. [Conscious. Cogn. 127 (2025) 103803] (S1053810024001703), (10.1016/j.concog.2024.103803)

The authors regret that several typographical errors and inaccuracies were identified in the published version of the article. These corrections enhance the accuracy and transparency of the statistical analyses and do not affect the original conclusions of the study. Methods In 2.5. Reliability (pages 6–7). 1. Due to errors in the R code, the agreement rates were incorrectly reported. The values previously stated as “87.50 %” for the choice task and “92.92 %” for the name task have been corrected to “90.63 %” and “96.88 %,” respectively.In 2.7.6. Relationship between the performance of the PSR, eye movements, pupil duration (page 10). 2. The subsection heading previously labeled “2.7.6. Relationship between the performance of the PSR, eye movements, pupil duration” has been corrected to read “2.7.6. Relationship between the performance of the PSR, eye movements, pupil dilation.”3. The term “ANOVA function” has been corrected to “anova function,” as this step of the analysis was intended to compare the model fit of the GLMMs. The term anova refers to the anova function implemented in the stats package in R. Results In 3.1. Fixation duration (pages 10–11). 4. “The final model contained identity, orientation, feature, and the interaction of feature and orientation, and that of feature and identity as fixed effects and yielded a significant effect of identity (F(3, 886.964) = 10.544, p < 0.001), feature (F(2, 92.522) = 9.568, p < 0.001), and interaction of feature and orientation (F(2, 931.594) = 4.250, p = 0.015), and feature and identity (F(6, 481.483) = 3.652, p = 0.027).” now reads: “The final model contained identity, orientation, feature, and the interaction of feature and orientation, and that of feature and identity as fixed effects and yielded a significant effect of identity (F(3, 886.964) = 10.544, p < 0.001), feature (F(2, 92.522) = 9.568, p < 0.001), and the interaction of feature and orientation (F(2, 931.594) = 4.250, p = 0.015), and that of feature and identity (F(6, 896.864) = 6.612, p < 0.001). ”5. “Regarding the interaction of features and orientation, in inverted orientation, only the score of nose is marginally higher than that of mouth (nose vs. mouth: β = 3.781, t(192.635) = 2.323, p = 0.055, 95 %CI:[−0.904, 8.466]), while in upright orientation, the score of nose was greater than that of eyes and mouth, and the score of eyes was higher than that of mouth (nose vs. eyes : β = 3.841, t(149.310) = 2.608, p = 0.027, 95 %CI:[0.354, 7.328]; nose vs. mouth : β = 9.267, t(226.068) = 5.316, p > 0.001, 95 %CI:[5.154, 13.380]; eyes vs. mouth: β = 5.426, t(188.381) = 3.292, p = 0.003, 95 %CI:[1.533, 9.319]).” now reads: “Regarding the interaction of features and orientation, in inverted orientation, only the score of nose is marginally higher than that of mouth (nose vs. mouth: β = 3.781, t(192.635) = 2.323, p = 0.055, 95 %CI:[−0.063, 7.625]), while in upright orientation, the score of nose was greater than that of eyes and mouth, and the score of eyes was higher than that of mouth (nose vs. eyes : β = 3.841, t(149.310) = 2.608, p = 0.027, 95 %CI:[0.354, 7.328]; nose vs. mouth : β = 9.267, t(226.068) = 5.316, p < 0.001, 95 %CI:[5.154, 13.380]; eyes vs. mouth: β = 5.426, t(188.381) = 3.292, p = 0.003, 95 %CI:[1.533, 9.319]). ”In 3.3. First fixation location (page 12). 6. The statement: “The chi-square goodness-of-fit test stratified by gender showed no relationship between the first fixation location and gender (p > 0.116).” now reads: “The chi-square goodness-of-fit test stratified by gender showed no relationship between the first fixation location and gender (all ps > 0.116).”7. The statement: “Furthermore, in trials with an inverted self-face, an upright self-face, and an upright stranger peer's face, the number of trials in which infants fixate nose first is higher than in trials in which they fixate mouth first (ps < 0.027).” now reads: “Furthermore, in trials with an inverted self-face, an upright self-face, and an upright stranger peer's face, the number of trials in which infants fixate nose first is higher than in trials in which they fixate mouth first (ps < 0.038).”In 3.4. Pupil dilation (page 12). 8. The corrected model indicates that the fixed effect of trial is statistically significant. However, additional analyses examining the effect of trial as block differences (i.e., first half [Trials 1–8] vs. second half [Trials 9–16]) revealed no significant differences between blocks. Accordingly, the statistical values have been updated following this. Therefore, the passage: “The final model contained identity, orientation, the interaction of identity and orientation, and the number of trials as fixed effects and yielded a significant effect of orientation (F(1, 421.280) = 11.721, p = 0.001) and the interaction of identity and orientation (F(3, 431.754) = 3.590, p = 0.014).” now reads: “The final model contained identity, orientation, the interaction of identity and orientation, and the number of trials as fixed effects and yielded a significant effect of orientation (F(1, 434.473) = 11.721, p < 0.001), the number of trials (F(1, 434.881) = 4.512, p = 0.034), and the interaction of identity and orientation (F(3, 434.470) = 3.594, p = 0.014). To examine whether baseline-corrected pupil dilation changed over the course of the trials, we conducted a three-way ANOVA with block (first half [Trials 1–8] vs. second half [Trials 9–16]), identity, and orientation as factors. The analysis revealed neither a significant main effect of block nor any interactions involving block (ps > 0.125).”9. The statement: “Across all faces, pupil dilation was greater in the upright orientation than in the inverted orientation (β = 0.038, t(421.222) = 3.358, p = 0.001, 95 %CI:[−0.061, −0.016]).” now reads: “Across all faces, pupil dilation was greater in the upright orientation than in the inverted orientation (β = 0.038, t(434.479) = 3.355, p < 0.001, 95 %CI:[0.016, 0.061]).”10. The statement: “Moreover, pairwise comparison showed that infants’ pupil dilation when looking at the self-face varied as a function of orientation (β = −0.099, t(428.669) = 4.408, p < 0.001, 95 %CI:[−0.144, −0.055]), such that pupil dilation in the upright orientation was greater than in the inverted one.” now reads: “Moreover, pairwise comparisons showed that infants’ pupil dilation when looking at the self-face varied as a function of orientation (β = 0.100, t(434.363) = 4.433, p < 0.001, 95 %CI:[0.056, 0.144]), such that pupil dilation in the upright orientation was greater than in the inverted one. ”11. The statement: “Moreover, in the upright orientation, pupil dilation when looking at the self-face was marginally greater than when looking at the stranger peer's face (β = −0.059, t(434.759) = 2.567, p = 0.052, 95 %CI:[−0.118, 0.0003]).” now reads: “Furthermore, in the upright orientation, pupil dilation when looking at the self-face was marginally greater than when looking at the stranger peer's face (β = 0.058, t(434.756) = 2.560, p = 0.052, 95 %CI:[−0.0004, 0.117]).” In line with these corrections, the values in Table 2 (F-tests for fixed effects in the final model) and Table S2 (GLMM model selection) have to be corrected with the following.In 3.6. Relationship between photo self-recognition, eye movements, and pupil dilation (page 13). Reporting errors in this section resulted from an oversight that occurred when the analytic procedure was modified during the revision process.12. The passage: “For eye movements, four-ways ANOVAs reveal only a significant interaction of the PSR task and feature in the number of fixations for the adult face category (F(2, 353.611) = 4.425, p = 0.013, η² = 0.990). The result showed that non-recognizers were significantly more fixated on nose than eyes and mouth and on eyes than mouth (nose vs. eyes: t(445) = 2.705, p = 0.019, d = 0.391; nose vs. mouth: t(445) = 5.190, p < 0.001, d = 1.182; eyes vs. mouth: t(445) = 3.703, p < 0.001, d = 0.952), while recognizers were more fixated on eyes and nose than on mouth (eyes vs. mouth: t(445) = 4.542, p < 0.001, d = 0.750; nose vs. mouth: t(445) = 3.675, p < 0.001, d = 0.671), but no significant difference between eyes and nose (p = 0.876). When looking at mother's and a stranger adult female faces, non-recognizers fixated excessively on the nose region. We did not find other significant group differences in eye movements and pupil dilation (p > 0.071).” now reads: “A series of ANOVAs revealed neither a significant main effect of PSR task nor any interactions involving PSR task (ps > 0.087). The results indicate that eye movements and pupil dilation did not differ significantly between recognizers and non-recognizers.”13. The statement: “The chi-square goodness-of-fit test, stratified by PSR task performance, revealed that the first fixation location was not associated with either the recognizers or the non-recognizers of the PSR task (p > 0.305).” now reads: “The chi-square goodness-of-fit test, stratified by PSR task performance, revealed that the first fixation location was not associated with either the recognizers or the non-recognizers of the PSR tasks (all ps > 0.305).” Tables 14. The legend for Table 2 (“Note. *p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001”) did not appear in the published version and has been restored.15. The supplementary tables (Table S1 and Table S2) were previously displayed in unintended blue text due to a formatting error and have been corrected to the standard black format. No substantive changes were made to the content of Table S1, whereas the updated statistical values in Table S2 reflect the corrected analyses described above. Table 2 (Corrected). Results of F-tests for fixed effects in the final models for each dependent variable. [Table presented.] Table S1 (Corrected). List of fixed and random effects of the null, full, and step models for each dependent variable. [Table presented.] Table S2 (Corrected). Results of GLMM model selection for the best-fitting model for each dependent variable. [Table presented.] The authors confirm that none of these corrections and additions affects the conclusions of the original article. The authors would like to apologise for the oversights and any inconvenience caused.