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.

Re-examination of Oostenbroek et al. (2016): evidence for neonatal imitation of tongue protrusion / Meltzoff, A. N.; Murray, L.; Simpson, E.; Heimann, M.; Nagy, E.; Nadel, J.; Pedersen, E. J.; Brooks, R.; Messinger, D. S.; Pascalis, L. D.; Subiaul, F.; Paukner, A.; Ferrari, P. F.. - In: DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE. - ISSN 1363-755X. - 21:4(2018), p. e12609. [10.1111/desc.12609]

Re-examination of Oostenbroek et al. (2016): evidence for neonatal imitation of tongue protrusion

Murray L.;Simpson E.;Ferrari P. F.
2018-01-01

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.
2018
Re-examination of Oostenbroek et al. (2016): evidence for neonatal imitation of tongue protrusion / Meltzoff, A. N.; Murray, L.; Simpson, E.; Heimann, M.; Nagy, E.; Nadel, J.; Pedersen, E. J.; Brooks, R.; Messinger, D. S.; Pascalis, L. D.; Subiaul, F.; Paukner, A.; Ferrari, P. F.. - In: DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE. - ISSN 1363-755X. - 21:4(2018), p. e12609. [10.1111/desc.12609]
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11381/2886117
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 59
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 51
social impact