Why the confusion around neonatal imitation? A review

Oostenbroek, Janine; Slaughter, Virginia; Nielsen, Mark; Suddendorf, Thomas

doi:10.1080/02646838.2013.832180

Cited by 34 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, cognitively lean re-interpretations of neonatal imitationfor instance, assuming simple attentional processes or experimental artifactswere brought forward (e.g., Anisfeld 1991;Heyes & Watson 1981). They were, however, surprisingly rare and are only slowly being perceived by a broader audience (e.g., Oostenbroek et al 2013). To our mind, the work by K&A in analysing the physiological mechanisms of neonatal behaviour encourages a general debate about cognitively rich versus lean interpretations.…”

Section: Open Peer Commentarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Neonatal imitation in context: Sensorimotor development in the perinatal period

Keven

Akins

2016

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some individuals have a neurogenetic vulnerability to developing strong facilitation of ingestive movements by learned configurations of biosocial stimuli. Condemning food as addictive is mere polemic, ignoring the contextualised sensory control of the mastication of each mouthful. To beat obesity, the least fattening of widely recognised eating patterns need to be measured and supported. Main TextKeven and Akins use recent evidence on the development of respiratory and ingestive movements to criticise claims that mimicry of tongue protrusion plays a role in attachment to carers. This comment applies their criticisms to the notion that addiction to ingestion makes people unhealthily fat. Both sets of ideas are symptomatic of a syndrome of 'multisensory neglect' in research. Ignorance of the configured biological and societal stimuli to each mouthful of food or drink largely accounts for the continued failure to reduce the contribution of excess energy intake to obesity and the resulting disease, disability and distress.

show abstract

Section: Open Peer Commentarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Neonatal imitation in context: Sensorimotor development in the perinatal period

Keven

Akins

2016

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Experimental tests of neonatal imitation in humans have used a variety of procedures, modelled actions, inclusion criteria and operational definitions of imitation (see reviews [32,43,87,88]) and, it is not, therefore, surprising that results have varied across studies. Although methodological differences may account for different results [51], there has been only one previous systematic report, to the best of our knowledge, comparing successful and unsuccessful methods, specifically focused on TP imitation [43].…”

Section: Why Some Laboratories Have Not Found Neonatal Imitation At Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

The mirror neuron system as revealed through neonatal imitation: presence from birth, predictive power and evidence of plasticity

Simpson

Murray

Paukner

et al. 2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

116

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is strong evidence that neonates imitate previously unseen behaviours. These behaviours are predominantly used in social interactions, demonstrating neonates' ability and motivation to engage with others. Research on neonatal imitation can provide a wealth of information about the early mirror neuron system (MNS), namely its functional characteristics, its plasticity from birth and its relation to skills later in development. Although numerous studies document the existence of neonatal imitation in the laboratory, little is known about its natural occurrence during parent -infant interactions and its plasticity as a consequence of experience. We review these critical aspects of imitation, which we argue are necessary for understanding the early action-perception system. We address common criticisms and misunderstandings about neonatal imitation and discuss methodological differences among studies. Recent work reveals that individual differences in neonatal imitation positively correlate with later social, cognitive and motor development. We propose that such variation in neonatal imitation could reflect important individual differences of the MNS. Although postnatal experience is not necessary for imitation, we present evidence that neonatal imitation is influenced by experience in the first week of life.

show abstract

“…Most recently, a carefully controlled short‐term longitudinal study presented 106 babies with the same nine modeled behaviors at 1, 3, 6, and 9 weeks of age, and found that babies were just as likely to produce each of the behaviors in response to nonmatching models as to matching models . Secondly, although a number of reviews of newborn imitation experiments have argued over the years for the reliability of this behavior, we find several reviews that have identified problems with the methods, effect sizes, data analyses, and interpretations in many newborn imitation experiments. In many cases, these problems reflect the difficulty of doing research with newborn babies.…”

Section: A Third Alternative: Newborn Infants Cannot Imitatementioning

confidence: 77%

“…In the vast majority of studies, these behaviors are mouth opening and tongue protruding, but small numbers of experiments (from two to six in each case) have documented newborn matching of a handful of other behaviors, like lip pursing, head turning, and finger movements. These reports have come from a number of different laboratories in different countries (for overviews of a majority of such studies, see Refs ).…”

Section: Do Newborn Infants Imitate? the Behavioral Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Can newborn infants imitate?

Jones

2016

WIRES Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For several decades, scientists have held that newborn human infants can imitate adult behaviors like mouth opening, tongue protruding, and finger movements. This has been difficult to explain. In particular, it is not clear how newborn infants could know enough about their own bodies and movements, and how these map onto the bodies and movements of others, to be able to match their own felt movements to the seen movements of others. Prominent theories posit the existence of inborn mechanisms that automatically link visual input from the movements of others to the infant's already existing motor programs to produce the same movements. Such mechanisms would be instances of the inheritance of specific knowledge. In this review, we explain how current data argue against the existence of an inborn mechanism for linking seen actions with programs for performing those actions. We then sketch an alternative, multicausal explanation for the gradual development of imitation across infancy and beyond. WIREs Cogn Sci 2017, 8:e1410. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1410 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

show abstract

Why the confusion around neonatal imitation? A review

Cited by 34 publications

References 60 publications

Neonatal imitation in context: Sensorimotor development in the perinatal period

Neonatal imitation in context: Sensorimotor development in the perinatal period

The mirror neuron system as revealed through neonatal imitation: presence from birth, predictive power and evidence of plasticity

Can newborn infants imitate?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About