Correction to “Visualizing the Invisible Tie: Linking Parent–Child Neural Synchrony to Parents’ and Children's Attachment Representations”

Abstract

Nguyen, T., Kungl, M. T., Hoehl, S., White, L. O., & Vrtička, P. (2024). “Visualizing the invisible tie: Linking parent–child neural synchrony to parents’ and children's attachment representations.” Developmental Science 27, e13504. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13504

There is an error in the data pertaining to the measure of children's attachment representations derived from the Picture Story Stem Battery (PSSB) because PSSB coherence values from 23 children were wrongly assigned to children's IDs. In the new analyses based on the corrected PSSB coherence values, the authors could not replicate the originally reported finding that dyads comprising daughters with secure attachment representations showed higher INS in right temporo-parietal regions—that is, the corrected results no longer revealed significant (interaction) effect, p > 0.091. All other results remained unchanged—that is, the authors confirmed their originally reported findings of no significant associations between children's PSSB coherence, behavioral synchrony, and children's biological sex, p > 0.305. The updated findings require corrections for Section 5.3 in the discussion. Additionally, all affected descriptive statistics and results in the Supplemental Materials have been corrected. Here are the corrections:

The third point in the Research Highlights is:

Dyads including daughters with secure attachment representations showed higher INS in right temporo-parietal regions.

It should have been:

Attachment representations in children were not associated with INS of parent-child dyads

The fourth point in the Research Highlights is:

INS is a promising correlate to probe the neurobiological underpinnings of attachment representations in the context of parent-child interactions, especially within the mutual prediction framework.

It should have been:

INS is a potential correlate to probe the neurobiological underpinnings of attachment representations in the context of parent-child interactions, especially within the mutual prediction framework.

In Section 4.5, the sentence:

The model outputs showed a significant interaction effect of ROI, children's biological sex, and PSSB coherence, 𝛸²(3) = 12.58, p = 0.006.

Should have been:

The model outputs showed no significant fixed and interaction effects of ROI, children's biological sex, and PSSB coherence, p > 0.091.

In Section 4.6, the sentence:

However, none of these relations were significant, p > 0.803.

Should have been:

However, none of these relations were significant, p > 0.305.

Section 5.3 should have been: