In the published article, there was an error. The following text should be removed: “For the eye tracking data, the study was approved by the Medical Ethical Research Committee (METC) of the Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam the Netherlands (MEC 2012–097).” The reason for this removal is that the data used in the published study did not include the data collected under this approval but only the data collected according to the following sentence: “For the use of data collected during regular clinical care an exemption from ethical review was obtained from the METC of Oost-Nederland (MEC 202113169).”
A correction has been made to Materials and methods, “Participants,” 2nd paragraph. The sentences previously stated:
“For the eye tracking data, the study was approved by the Medical Ethical Research Committee (METC) of the Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam the Netherlands (MEC 2012–097). For the use of data collected during regular clinical care an exemption from ethical review was obtained from the METC of Oost-Nederland (MEC 2021–13169). Informed consent was obtained from each patient's parent or caregiver. We adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki (2013) for research involving human subjects.”
The corrected sentences appear below:
“For the use of data collected during regular clinical care an exemption from ethical review was obtained from the METC of Oost-Nederland (MEC 2021–13169). Informed consent was obtained from each patient's parent or caregiver. We adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki (2013) for research involving human subjects.”
A correction has also been made to the Ethics statement to remove the same text. The correct Ethics statement appears below:
Ethics statement
For the use of data collected during regular clinical care an exemption from ethical review was obtained from the METC of Oost-Nederland (MEC 2021–13169). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants' legal guardians/next of kin.
The authors apologize for this error 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: cerebral visual impairment, childhood, subtyping, classification, visual function, eye movements, visual fields, optic disk
Citation: Philip J, Huurneman B, Jansonius NM, Cillessen AHN and Boonstra FN (2024) Corrigendum: Childhood cerebral visual impairment subtype classification based on an extensive versus a limited test battery. Front. Neurosci. 18:1462687. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2024.1462687
Received: 10 July 2024; Accepted: 08 August 2024;
Published: 20 August 2024.
Copyright © 2024 Philip, Huurneman, Jansonius, Cillessen and Boonstra. 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: Frouke N. Boonstra, nienkeboonstra@visio.org
留言 (0)