No abstract

The meaning, mechanism, and function of imitation in early infancy have been actively discussed since Meltzoff and Moore's (1977) report of facial and manual imitation by human neonates. Oostenbroek et al. (2016) claim to challenge the existence of early imitation and to counter all interpretations so far offered. Such claims, if true, would have implications for theories of social-cognitive development. Here we identify 11 flaws in Oostenbroek et al.'s experimental design that biased the results toward null effects. We requested and obtained the authors' raw data. Contrary to the authors' conclusions, new analyses reveal significant tongue-protrusion imitation at all four ages tested (1, 3, 6, and 9 weeks old). We explain how the authors missed this pattern and offer five recommendations for designing future experiments. Infant imitation raises fundamental issues about action representation, social learning, and brain-behavior relations. The debate about the origins and development of imitation reflects its importance to theories of developmental science.

In most of our social life we communicate and relate to others. Successful interpersonal relating is crucial to physical and mental well-being and growth. This study, using the still-face paradigm, demonstrates that even human neonates (n = 90, 3-96 hr after birth) adjust their behavior according to the social responsiveness of their interaction partner. If the interaction partner becomes unresponsive, newborns will also change their behavior, decrease eye contact, and display signs of distress. Even after the interaction partner resumes responsiveness, the effects of the communication disturbance persist as a spillover. These results indicate that even newborn infants sensitively monitor the behavior of others and react as if they had innate expectations regarding rules of interpersonal interaction.

Imitation of a fine motor movement, index finger protrusion, was examined in 39 neonates using an ethologically based objective coding system. Results confirmed that imitation of finger movements exists, and infants demonstrated "learning" as imitation developed through an incomplete imitation stage. Neonatal imitation was more frequently left-handed, an early sign of laterality in motivation to be investigated further. The existence of index finger imitation in human neonates indicates that volitional control of individuated finger movements develops much earlier than previously thought. The differential increase of index finger protrusion movements during the imitation periods suggests that this behavior is not an automatic response triggered by general arousal but instead is a true indicator of purposeful neonatal imitation. The cognitive developmental approach in the first half of the 20th century (1) assumed that imitation of observed actions occurs at the earliest from 10 -12 mo of age, based on learning and experience. Since the 1970s, a series of studies (2-9) has confirmed that infants even as young as a few hours old can imitate proprioceptively guided behaviors. Despite these findings, neonatal imitation remained a controversial "fuzzy phenomenon" (10). Several studies failed to replicate the phenomenon (11-14), and it was even regarded as artefact by some researchers (15). The confusion about neonatal imitation in part originates from the fact that most movements of neonates were regarded as unintentional until Van der Meer et al. (16) showed that newborn infants can purposefully control their arm resistance against small forces. Recent research showed that most neonatal behaviors, including neonatal reflexes, such as rooting, sucking, and imitation, are flexible and goal-directed behaviors (17). Nagy and Molnar (18,19) reported that neonates not only are able to imitate tongue protrusion gestures but also started to initiate the previously imitated gestures and to engage in long-lasting imitation/initiation "conversation" with the experimenter. Imitations and initiations were coupled with opposite heart rate changes during these dialogues and may indicate a prospective control of a new movement (heart rate increase during imitations) and an attention to an expected reply (heart rate decrease during initiations).Imitation is still lacking an ethologic, and neurophysiologic description in neonates. Why newborn infants imitate and how they can do it are still unanswered questions, although various models have been proposed. Imitation has been described as an unconditioned reflex, a circular reaction (20) or a secondary circular reaction (1), and as an innate releasing mechanism (21). It has been explained as a product of associative learning (22) or instrumental learning (23). Recent explanations include the theory of intermodal mapping (3,24) and the mirror neuron system model (25,26). Although these models successfully explain several aspects of neonatal imitation, none of them is able to describe ...

BackgroundAlthough there is data on the spontaneous behavioural repertoire of the fetus, studies on their behavioural responses to external stimulation are scarce.Aim, MethodsThe aim of the current study was to measure fetal behavioural responses in reaction to maternal voice; to maternal touch of the abdomen compared to a control condition, utilizing 3D real-time (4D) sonography. Behavioural responses of 23 fetuses (21st to 33rd week of gestation; N = 10 in the 2nd and N = 13 in the 3rd trimester) were frame-by-frame coded and analyzed in the three conditions.ResultsResults showed that fetuses displayed more arm, head, and mouth movements when the mother touched her abdomen and decreased their arm and head movements to maternal voice. Fetuses in the 3rd trimester showed increased regulatory (yawning), resting (arms crossed) and self-touch (hands touching the body) responses to the stimuli when compared to fetuses in the 2nd trimester.ConclusionIn summary, the results from this study suggest that fetuses selectively respond to external stimulation earlier than previously reported, fetuses actively regulated their behaviours as a response to the external stimulation, and that fetal maturation affected the emergence of these differential responses to the environment.

No abstract

Although a large body of evidence has accumulated on the young human infant's ability to imitate, the phenomenon has failed to gain unanimous acceptance. Imitation of tongue protrusion, the most tested gesture to date, was examined in a sample of 115 newborns in the first 5 days of life in 3 seating positions. An ethologically based statistical coding system that coded all mouth and tongue movements regardless of whether they were imitative was employed. In order to assess the role of arousal, all arm and finger movements, as well as the infants' states, were coded. Neonates selectively increased the frequency of the strong, but not the weak, tongue protrusions; did not change their states; and did not increase the frequencies of the arm and general finger movements from the baseline to the modeling period, and the position of the baby significantly affected the outcome measures. The results confirm the human neonate's imitative ability, provide evidence that neonatal imitation is not an arousal response, and demonstrate that methodological factors affect the results.

Although neonatology, the study of the newborn, is well established in medical science, psychological research on the newborn is relatively scarce. Can we justify this period as a distinct stage of human development in Psychology? This introductory article considers the unique characteristics of the neonatal period, the impact of the transition to extrauterine life, including the impact of birth itself, and the stages of brain development that characterize this period. It presents evidence of an intentional, intersubjective neonate, and uses behavioural and neuroscientific evidence to argue that the neonate's early social preferences and responses indicate a unique, sensitive, experience-expectant stage of development.The authors of this issue agree in proposing that the newborn infant is prepared, evolutionarily and psychobiologically, to be born intersubjective. The notion of an intersubjective newborn infant, however, is virtually impossible to support without data and models from neuroscience, medicine, perinatology, physiology, ethology, evolutionary psychology and cognitive science. This issue is an attempt to bring scientists together from many of these fields to explore the unique characteristics of the first weeks of life.