DO INFANTS SHOW GENERALIZED IMITATION OF GESTURES? II. THE EFFECTS OF SKILLS TRAINING AND MULTIPLE EXEMPLAR MATCHING TRAINING

The determinants of generalized imitation of manual gestures were investigated in 1‐ to 2‐year‐old infants. Eleven infants were first trained eight baseline matching relations; then, four novel gestures that the infants did not match in probe trials were selected as target behaviors. Next, in a generalized imitation test in which matching responses to baseline models were intermittently reinforced, but matching responses to target models were not eligible for reinforcement, the infants matched baseline models but not the majority of their target behaviors. To ensure their failure to match the target behaviors was not due to motor constraints, the infants were trained, in a multiple‐baseline procedure, to produce the target responses under stimulus control that did not include an antecedent model of the target behavior. There was no evidence of generalized imitation in subsequent tests. When the infants were next trained to match each target behavior to criterion (tested in extinction) in a multiple‐baseline‐across‐behaviors procedure, only 2 infants continued to match all their targets in subsequent tests; the remaining infants matched only some of them. Seven infants were next given mixed matching training with the target behaviors to criterion (tested in extinction); they subsequently matched these targets without reinforcement when interspersed with trials on which matching responses to baseline models were intermittently reinforced. In repeat tests, administered at 3‐week intervals, these 7 children (and 2 that did not take part in mixed matching training) continued to match most of their target behaviors. The results support a trained matching account, but provide no evidence of generalized imitation, in 1‐ to 2‐year‐old infants.     

DO INFANTS SHOW GENERALIZED IMITATION OF GESTURES?

Two experiments were conducted to investigate generalized imitation of manual gestures in 1- to 2-year-old infants. In Experiment 1, 6 infants were first trained four baseline matching relations (e.g., when instructed "Do this", to raise their arms after they saw the experimenter do so). Next, four novel gestures that the infants did not match in probe trials were selected as target behaviors during generalized imitation Test 1; models of these gestures were presented on unreinforced matching trials interspersed with intermittently reinforced baseline matching trials. None of the infants matched the target behaviors. To ensure that these behaviors were in the infants' motor skills repertoires, the infants were next trained to produce them, at least once, under stimulus control that did not include an antecedent model of the target behavior. In repeat generalized imitation trials (Test 2), the infants again failed to match the target behaviors. Five infants (3 from Experiment 1) participated in Experiment 2, which was identical to Experiment 1 except that, following generalized imitation Test 1, the motor-skills training was implemented to a higher criterion (21 responses per target behavior), and in a multiple-baseline, across-target-behaviors procedure. In the final generalized imitation test, 1 infant matched one, and another infant matched two target behaviors; the remaining 17 target behaviors still were not matched. The results did not provide convincing evidence of generalized imitation, even though baseline matching was well maintained and the target behaviors were in the infants' motor skills repertoires, raising the question of what are the conditions that reliably give rise to generalized imitation.     

GENERALIZED IMITATION AND RESPONSE-CLASS FORMATION IN CHILDREN WITH AUTISM

An experimental analysis of imitation was conducted to examine the influence of response topography on generalization of imitation across three response types. Four children with autism were presented with both reinforced training trials and nonreinforced probe trials of models from vocal, toy-play, and pantomime response types. The probe trials were used to examine generalization within each response type. A multiple baseline design was used to analyze percentage of matching and nonmatching responses to models across response types. This study, the first to analyze imitative response classes in children with autism, showed that imitation generalized from reinforced training models to nonreinforced probe models within a response type, but it did not generalize across response types. Thus, functional response classes determined by topographical boundaries were exhibited within generalized imitation.     

The impact of body-part-naming training on the accuracy of imitative performances in 2- to 3-year-old children

A series of three experiments explored the relationship between 3-year-old children's ability to name target body parts and their untrained matching of target hand-to-body touches. Nine participants, 3 per experiment, were presented with repeated generalized imitation tests in a multiple-baseline procedure, interspersed with step-by-step training that enabled them to (i) tact the target locations on their own and the experimenter's bodies or (ii) respond accurately as listeners to the experimenter's tacts of the target locations. Prompts for on-task naming of target body parts were also provided later in the procedure. In Experiment 1, only tact training followed by listener probes were conducted; in Experiment 2, tacting was trained first and listener behavior second, whereas in Experiment 3 listener training preceded tact training. Both tact and listener training resulted in emergence of naming together with significant and large improvements in the children's matching performances; this was true for each child and across most target gestures. The present series of experiments provides evidence that naming--the most basic form of self-instructional behavior--may be one means of establishing untrained matching as measured in generalized imitation tests. This demonstration has a bearing on our interpretation of imitation reported in the behavior analytic, cognitive developmental, and comparative literature.     

Positive evidence for neonatal imitation: A general response,adaptive engagement

The study employed four gestural models using frame‐by‐frame microanalytic methods, and followed how the behaviours unfolded over time. Forty‐two human newborns (0–3 days) were examined for their imitation of tongue protrusion, ‘head tilt with looking up’, three‐finger and two‐finger gestures. The results showed that all three gesture groups were imitated. Results of the temporal analyses revealed an early and a later, second stage of responses. Later responses were characterized by a suppression of similar, but non‐matching movements. Perinatal imitation is not a phenomenon served by a single underlying mechanism; it has at least two different stages. An early phase is followed by voluntary matching behaviour by the neonatal infant.     

Neonatal imitation in a mother–infant setting

Imitation of tongue protrusions and mouth openings was investigated in 18 newborn infants using a procedure differing in three ways from previous laboratory studies: the mother presented the target gestures, she was permitted to adjust to the infant's reactions, and the infant's baseline response rate was assessed during face-to-face interaction. This procedure was assumed to facilitate infant imitation. Compared with baseline responses in face-to-face interaction, both tongue protrusions and mouth openings were imitated in the two conditions. No imitation, however, was found when the responses in the two imitation conditions were compared. These results are less convincing than those found in strictly controlled laboratory experiments. A less restrictive procedure did not, therefore, promote imitation. The mixed results could be explained by too short an exposure to the target gesture. If repeated and insistent gesturing is a crucial condition, neonatal imitation might be understood to be the result of instruction and teaching, rather than a means of mutual communication. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Poor Imitative Performance of Unlearned Gestures in Children with Probable Developmental Coordination Disorder

It has been hypothesized that deficits in imitation, linked to abnormal functioning of the mirror neuron system (MNS), may contribute to the motor impairments associated with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). The authors aimed to examine imitation of complex novel postures and sequences of gestures in children with and without probable DCD (pDCD), using the postural praxis and sequencing praxis subtests of the Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests (Ayres, 1989 Ayres, A. J. (1989). Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests: SIPT manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. [Google Scholar]). Participants were 29 boys with pDCD between 6.08 and 13.33 years old, and 29 group age-matched typically developing boys between 6.08 and 13.83 years old. Responses of children with pDCD on both imitation tasks were less accurate than controls, with group differences more apparent with increasing task complexity. Furthermore, as a group, children with pDCD were slower and had a higher number of non–mirror-imitated responses. There was considerable variability within the pDCD group, with some children displaying imitation scores within the normative range. Given the importance of imitation and visual learning for motor development, the difficulties in imitation displayed by some children with pDCD have the potential to impact on movement acquisition. Interventions to target imitation may be beneficial for these children. The results show that children with pDCD had difficulty imitating complex novel postures, children with pDCD had difficulty imitating gesture sequences, children with pDCD had slower responses than controls, group differences in imitation performance increased with task complexity, and not all children with pDCD displayed imitation deficits.     

Generalized imitation within three response classes in typically developing infants

Effects of modeling and contingent praise on infant imitation of three different responses was analyzed. Generalization to nonreinforced probe models was assessed both within and across response types. Three 12- to 14-month-old infants and their mothers participated in this study. During baseline the mothers provided models only. During treatment mothers modeled and also praised contingent upon infant matching of the training models. During interspersed probe trials the mothers modeled different responses, which, if matched by the infant, produced no praise. The three responses modeled were motor-with-toy, motor-without-toy, and vocal responses. The dependent measure was the percentage of maternal models that were matched by the infant within 6 s. Nonmatching responses of the same response type were also measured. Results showed a systematic increase in the percentages of training and probe models matched by the three infants following the introduction of the model-and-praise treatment condition. Nonmatching responses did not systematically increase. Thus, imitation generalized within response class, but not across response classes.     

Behavioral similarity as a reinforcer for preschool children

Three experiments evaluated whether behavioral similarity provided by an adult could serve as a reinforcer for the modelling behavior of four preschoolers. In each experiment, sessions consisted of two kinds of trials: (1) experimenter-modelled trials, when the child's imitation of modelled motor responses was reinforced with praise and tokens, and (2) child-modelled trials when experimenter imitation of child-modelled responses was contingent upon the child's modelling one of three alternative responses: operation of a ball, horn, or clicker. Experiment I showed that the children consistently modelled whichever responses the experimenter imitated. Experiment II determined whether that performance was due to differences in the amount of experimenter behavior following imitated versus nonimitated child models or to experimenter imitation. Neither reducing nor increasing the amount of experimenter behavior following the children's nonimitated models altered their modelling of imitated responses. Experiment III evaluated whether experimenter imitation of child models was a reinforcer because the child's imitative responses were reinforced on experimenter-modelled trials. In Experiment III, the children's nonimitation of experimenter-models was reinforced with praise and tokens on a schedule of differential reinforcement of other behavior, yet they continued to model experimenter-imitated responses on child-modelled trials. These results indicate behavioral similarity was reinforcing, though no conditioning history through which it acquired that function was demonstrated.     

Imitation in toddlers as a function of motor and verbal aspects of modeling

This study investigated the effects of the motor and verbal aspects of modeling on imitation. The subjects were 2- and 3-year-old children (N = 96). The child's imitation responses were recorded during the play period that followed each modeled act. Each child observed the model in one of four modeling conditions. In Condition 1, the model "flew" a telephone while saying that he or she was flying an airplane. Imitation was recorded as motor if the child flew the telephone but was recorded as verbal and realistic if the child flew an airplane. In Condition 2, the model flew an airplane while saying that he or she was flying a telephone. Imitation was recorded as verbal if the child flew the telephone. In Condition 3, the model flew an airplane and said that he or she was flying an airplane. If the child flew an airplane, imitation was scored as motor, verbal, and realistic. In Condition 4, the model flew a telephone and said that he or she was flying a telephone. Imitation was scored as motor and verbal if the child flew the telephone but was scored as realistic if the child flew the airplane. In Condition 1, 2-year-olds displayed more motor imitation than 3-year-olds, and 3-year-olds displayed more verbal-reality imitation than 2-year-olds. Boys displayed more motor imitation than girls. There were no age or sex differences in Condition 2. In Condition 3, 2-year-olds imitated more than 3-year-olds, with 3-year-old girls imitating the least. In Condition 4, reality imitation was largely due to 2-year-old boys' imitation of masculine-type acts.     

Naming and categorization in young children: III. Vocal tact training and transfer of function

Following pretraining with everyday objects, 10 children aged from 1 to 4 years were given common vocal tact training with a set of three pairs of arbitrary stimuli of differing shapes; Set 1. Nine children learned to tact one stimulus as "zog" and the other as "vek" in each pair, and all passed subsequent pairwise tests for the corresponding listener behavior to each listener stimulus (i.e., /zog/ and /vek/, respectively). The children were next trained to clap to one stimulus of Pair 1 and wave to the other, and all then showed name-consistent transfer of these behaviors to the stimuli of Pair 2 and Pair 3. Seven children also were given a test of listener responding to experimenter-modeled clap and wave gestures, respectively, which they all passed. Four of the children next participated in a category match-to-sample test for the Set 1 stimuli; all 4 passed. For each pair of two additional six-stimuli sets, Set 2 and Set 3, 3 children were trained to wave to one stimulus and to clap to the other. For each set, all 3 children showed perfect transfer of the vocal tacts trained to Set 1, and of listener behavior both to the auditory stimuli /zog/ and /vek/ and to experimenter-modeled clap and wave gestures. They also sorted the stimuli perfectly in category match-to-sample tests for Set 2, Sets 1 and 2 combined, Set 3, and Sets 1, 2, and 3 combined. The results show that even in very young children, naming is a powerful means of generating new category relations among as many as 18 arbitrary stimuli.     

Exploring the Relation Between Memory, Gestural Communication, and the Emergence of Language in Infancy: A Longitudinal Study

The relationship between recall memory, visual recognition memory, social communication, and the emergence of language skills was measured in a longitudinal study. Thirty typically developing Swedish children were tested at 6, 9 and 14 months. The result showed that, in combination, visual recognition memory at 6 months, deferred imitation at 9 months and turn-taking skills at 14 months could explain 41% of the variance in the infants' production of communicative gestures as measured by a Swedish variant of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories (CDI). In this statistical model, deferred imitation stood out as the strongest predictor.     

The social control of generalized imitation

Instructions, discrimination procedures, and sources of reinforcement were manipulated in order to determine the bases for the maintained "non-reinforced" imitations observed in generalized imitation research. Six girls received imitation training from two experimenters. One experimenter modelled only reinforced responses; the other modelled only non-reinforced responses. The children imitated all responses when no reinforced alternative was available, even though results of choice procedures and special instructions clearly demonstrated that they discriminated reinforced from non-reinforced responses. Instructions not to perform non-reinforced imitations immediately eliminated these behaviors. It is suggested that social setting events may be largely responsible for generalized imitation.     

Delayed imitation of complex behavioural sequences by 14- to 16-month olds

The present study was conducted to determine if children under the age of 18 months can exhibit delayed imitation of three-event sequences when they have no opportunity to practice. Twenty-three 14- to 16-month-old children underwent two different imitation conditions. In the practice condition the children could imitate the sequence immediately after modelling; then they were tested 1 or 7 days later. In the no practice condition the children had the chance to imitate only on the test day. Children were able to imitate the sequences under both conditions irrespective of the delay period. They produced significantly more target actions, and more target actions in the correct order, in the test phase and cued recall phase, compared with the baseline. There were no differences between the two conditions with a 1-day delay period, but after a 7-day delay, the number of target actions produced during the practice condition was significantly higher than those in the no practice condition. The results are discussed in terms of nonverbal mimetic representations. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The development of imitation by reinforcing behavioral similarity to a model

This research demonstrated some of the conditions under which retarded children can be taught to imitate the actions of adults. Before the experiment, the subjects were without spontaneous imitative behavior, either vocal or motor. Each subject was taught, with food as reinforcement, a series of responses identical to responses demonstrated by an experimenter; i.e., each response was reinforced only if it was identical to a prior demonstration by an experimenter. Initially, intensive shaping was required to establish matching responses by the subjects. In the course of acquiring a variety of such responses, the subjects' probability of immediate imitation of each new demonstration, before direct training, greatly increased. Later in the study, certain new imitations, even though perfect, were never reinforced; yet as long as some imitative responses were reinforced, all remained at high strength. This imitativeness was then used to establish initial verbal repertoires in two subjects.     

From imitation to conversation: the first dialogues with human neonates

The functional maturity of the newborn infant's brain, the resemblances between neonatal imitation and imitation in adults and the possibly lateralized neonatal imitation suggest that the mirror neuron system may contribute to neonatal imitation. Newborn infants not only imitate but also initiate previously imitated gestures, and are able to participate in overlapping imitation–initiation communicative cycles. Additionally, these social responses in neonates are faster than previously thought, and may enable them to have long‐lasting intimate interactions much before language develops. Infants are equipped with a powerful, innate, reciprocal communicative ability already at birth. The earliest communication originates from imitation and this communicative ability presumably later evolves to language. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

THE DEVELOPMENT AND GENERALIZATION OF DELAYED IMITATION1

An individual's behavior can be identified as imitative if it temporally follows the behavior of another individual and if its topography is controlled by the demonstrated behavior [Baer, Peterson, and Sherman (Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1967, 10 , 405–416)]. This definition takes into account both temporal and topographical characteristics of the behavior in question. More recent research in the area of imitation has interpreted the temporal component of the above definition differentially by limiting imitation to those topographically similar responses occurring within 3, 5, or 10 sec after a model's demonstration. Yet, Gewirtz and Stingle (Psychological Review, 1968, 75 , 375–397) pointed out that much of the imitation seen in young children is not of this immediate nature, but instead occurs sometime after a model's response. They further suggest that this type of imitative behavior can be characterized as a response class and is susceptible to development and modification as a function of consequences delivered to subjects contingent on this type of delayed responding. Four retarded children, three initially imitative and one nonimitative, were individually trained to imitate a number of motor responses in an immediate and a delayed fashion. Immediate imitation was defined as a response similar to a model's demonstration occurring within 5 sec after the model's demonstration; delayed imitation was defined as a response similar to a model's demonstration occurring more than 5 sec, but not more than 25 sec, after the model's demonstration. A reversal (ABAB) design was employed to examine the experimental development of a generalized delayed imitative repertoire. Untrained probe responses were demonstrated to subjects systematically through the ongoing training. Generalized immediate and delayed imitation were observed in each subject; this generalization was restricted to the type of imitation currently undergoing training. This development of a generalized imitation repertoire was observed in each subject. That is, these subjects imitated some responses that had never been specifically trained. More importantly, a training package consisting of prompting, fading, and consequences for delayed imitation functioned to develop generalized delayed imitation. These data exemplify a special case of generalization that was a function of the most recent training history of immediate or delayed imitation. The reversal design demonstrated that imitations of nontrained models were either delayed or immediate, depending upon which form of imitation was currently receiving training. Therefore, for each form of imitation trained, delayed or immediate, a corresponding response class was demonstrated. These data relate to data reported by Garcia, Baer, and Firestone (Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1971, 4 , 101–112). The association lies in the proposition that there are identifiable boundaries of generalized imitation and that these boundaries are functionally related to previous training histories.     

Human symbolic matching-to-sample performance: Effects of reinforcer and sample-stimulus probabilities

Four experiments, each with 6 human subjects, varied the distribution of reinforcers for correct responses and the probability of sample-stimulus presentation in symbolic matching-to-sample procedures. Experiment 1 held the sample-stimulus probability constant and varied the ratio of reinforcers obtained for correct responses on the two alternatives across conditions. There was a positive relation between measures of response bias and the ratio of reinforcers. Experiment 2 held the ratio of reinforcers constant and varied the sample-stimulus probability across conditions. Unlike previous studies that used pigeons as subjects, there was a negative relation between bias and the ratio of sample-stimulus presentations. In Experiment 3, the sample-stimulus probability and the reinforcer ratio covaried across conditions. Response bias did not vary systematically across conditions. In Experiments 1 to 3, correct responses were reinforced intermittently. Experiment 4 used the same procedure as Experiment 3, but all correct responses now produced some scheduled consequence. There was a positive relation between response bias and the ratio of reinforcers. The results suggest that human performance in these tasks was controlled by both the relative frequency of reinforced responses and the relative frequency of nonreinforced responses.     

What do children with autism attend to during imitation tasks?

Individuals with autism show a complex profile of differences in imitative ability, including a general deficit in precision of imitating another’s actions and special difficulty in imitating nonmeaningful gestures relative to meaningful actions on objects. Given that they also show atypical patterns of visual attention when observing social stimuli, we investigated whether possible differences in visual attention when observing an action to be imitated may contribute to imitative difficulties in autism in both nonmeaningful gestures and meaningful actions on objects. Results indicated that (a) a group of 18 high-functioning 8- to 15-year-olds with autistic disorder, in comparison with a matched group of 13 typically developing children, showed similar patterns of visual attention to the demonstrator’s action but decreased attention to his face when observing a model to be imitated; (b) nonmeaningful gestures and meaningful actions on objects triggered distinct visual attention patterns that did not differ between groups; (c) the autism group demonstrated reduced imitative precision for both types of imitation; and (d) duration of visual attention to the demonstrator’s action was related to imitation precision for nonmeaningful gestures in the autism group.