This task was adapted from Povinell

This task was adapted from Povinelli et al. (1996). The main purpose was to assess children’s understanding of the self as possessing explicit temporal features. At the beginning of the experiment the child and experimenter 1 sat across from each other at a table surrounded by black walls to secure a high contrast-video. Experimenter 2 sat at the child’s right to operate a hand camera which stood ca. Two meters away from the child. Further,acoveredvideomonitorwithinthechild’svisualfield,but notyetvisibletothechild,waspartofthesetting.Themonitorhad a width of 39.5 cm and a height of 35 cm. Two cameras were used to film the whole setting, as well as close-ups of the child during the experiment.
Atthebeginningofthemarking-phase,experimenter2showed the camera to the child. The child was told that the child and experimenter 1 would play a game and that the camera would record everything so that they could look at the video later. Then, experimenter 1 and the child began playing a search game lasting for five trials, where the child had to search for a cracker which could be hidden under three different opaque containers. Trials 1 and 2 were used to habituate the child to experimenter 2 touching his or her forehead (this was done while praising the child for his or her success at the search task). During trial 3 a sticker (a yellow one was used for dark-haired children and a blue one was used for blond-haired children) was placed at the child’s forehead. The post-it stickers measured 76 76 mm. Trials 4 and 5 served as control trials to ensure the child had not detected the sticker. In these trials the child was only praised, but not touched.
The test-phase followed 2 min after trial 5 and experimenter 2 informed the child that they would now look at the video. It was made sure that the overall setting remained the same in the test-phase as compared to the marking-phase and that the child’s face was not reflected in the monitor. The child was shown the video beginning in trial 3 and 15 s after the start the first prompt was given: “Who is this?,” while pointing at the child in the video. If children gave no answer the prompt was repeated. After an additional15s,experimenter2gavethesecondpromptandasked: “What is this?,” while pointing at the sticker in the video. If the child did not answer or answered incorrectly the experimenter said: “This is a sticker!” followed by “Where is the sticker now?” After 15 additional seconds the third prompt followed and the experimenter said: “Can you find the sticker? Where it is now?” Thereby, the word “now” was emphasized.
It was coded whether children took off the sticker or touched it, as well as when this behavior occurred. Based on this, children could receive scores ranging from 0 to 4. They received a score of 0 if they did not touch the sticker at all. They received a score of 1 if they touched it only after the third cue, a score of 2 if they touched it after the second cue, a score of 3 if they touched it after thefirstcueandascoreof4iftheytoucheditevenbeforeanycues were given. Interrater-reliability for this coding was 0.79 (Cohen’s Kappa).
In regard to excluded children, the task was not administered in n = 3 children due to time restrictions, while n = 9 children


9 months X
12 months X
24 months X
4 years X X


TABLE 2 | Descriptive statistics of the study variables.

N %/M SD Categories/ Range

SF effect mile 9 months 61 0 = 12/1 = 88 0.32 0/1 SF effect gaze 9 months 66 0 = 30/1 = 70 0.43 0/1 SF effect reengagement 9 months 66 0 = 21/1 = 79 0.41 0/1 Social mirroring 12 months 69 1.39 1.20 0–3 Mirror self-recognition 24 months 69 0 = 32/1 = 68 0.47 0/1 Delayed self-recognition 4 years 55 1.80 1.31 0–4 Verbal IQ 4 years 63 107.44 13.72 67–137

mo, months; SF, still-face.

detected the sticker during application and in n = 2 children the sticker fell off during the play-back phase. Finally, n = 1 child did not pay attention to the video at the critical time points

Results (Indonesian) 1:

Tugas ini diadaptasi dari Povinelli et al. (1996). Tujuan utama adalah untuk menilai anak-anak memahami diri sebagai memiliki fitur fosil yang eksplisit. Di awal percobaan anak dan bergerak 1 duduk di satu sama lain di sebuah meja yang dikelilingi oleh dinding hitam untuk mengamankan kontras tinggi-video. Bergerak 2 duduk di sebelah kanan anak mengoperasikan kamera tangan yang berdiri ca. Dua meter dari anak. Lebih lanjut, acoveredvideomonitorwithinthechild'svisualfield, tetapi notyetvisibletothechild, waspartofthesetting. Themonitorhad lebar 39.5 cm dan tinggi 35 cm. Dua kamera digunakan untuk film seluruh pengaturan, serta close-up anak selama percobaan.Atthebeginningofthemarking-fase, experimenter2showed kamera untuk anak. Anak diberitahu bahwa anak dan bergerak 1 akan memainkan permainan dan bahwa kamera akan merekam segala sesuatu sehingga mereka bisa melihat video kemudian. Kemudian, bergerak 1 dan anak mulai bermain permainan pencarian yang berlangsung selama lima uji, mana anak harus mencari seorang cracker yang boleh disembunyikan di bawah tiga wadah buram yang berbeda. Uji 1 dan 2 yang digunakan untuk membiasakan anak untuk bergerak 2 menyentuh nya dahi (ini dilakukan sambil memuji anak untuk sukses nya tugas Cari). Selama percobaan 3 stiker (kuning yang digunakan untuk anak-anak berambut gelap dan biru yang digunakan untuk anak-anak blond-haired) diletakkan di dahi anak. Post-it stiker diukur 4 dan 5 berfungsi sebagai kontrol percobaan untuk memastikan anak telah tidak terdeteksi stiker 76 76 mm. uji. Pada uji coba ini anak hanya dipuji, tetapi tidak menyentuh.The test-phase followed 2 min after trial 5 and experimenter 2 informed the child that they would now look at the video. It was made sure that the overall setting remained the same in the test-phase as compared to the marking-phase and that the child’s face was not reflected in the monitor. The child was shown the video beginning in trial 3 and 15 s after the start the first prompt was given: “Who is this?,” while pointing at the child in the video. If children gave no answer the prompt was repeated. After an additional15s,experimenter2gavethesecondpromptandasked: “What is this?,” while pointing at the sticker in the video. If the child did not answer or answered incorrectly the experimenter said: “This is a sticker!” followed by “Where is the sticker now?” After 15 additional seconds the third prompt followed and the experimenter said: “Can you find the sticker? Where it is now?” Thereby, the word “now” was emphasized.It was coded whether children took off the sticker or touched it, as well as when this behavior occurred. Based on this, children could receive scores ranging from 0 to 4. They received a score of 0 if they did not touch the sticker at all. They received a score of 1 if they touched it only after the third cue, a score of 2 if they touched it after the second cue, a score of 3 if they touched it after thefirstcueandascoreof4iftheytoucheditevenbeforeanycues were given. Interrater-reliability for this coding was 0.79 (Cohen’s Kappa).In regard to excluded children, the task was not administered in n = 3 children due to time restrictions, while n = 9 children9 months X12 months X24 months X4 years X XTABLE 2 | Descriptive statistics of the study variables.N %/M SD Categories/ RangeSF effect mile 9 months 61 0 = 12/1 = 88 0.32 0/1 SF effect gaze 9 months 66 0 = 30/1 = 70 0.43 0/1 SF effect reengagement 9 months 66 0 = 21/1 = 79 0.41 0/1 Social mirroring 12 months 69 1.39 1.20 0–3 Mirror self-recognition 24 months 69 0 = 32/1 = 68 0.47 0/1 Delayed self-recognition 4 years 55 1.80 1.31 0–4 Verbal IQ 4 years 63 107.44 13.72 67–137mo, months; SF, still-face.detected the sticker during application and in n = 2 children the sticker fell off during the play-back phase. Finally, n = 1 child did not pay attention to the video at the critical time points