Re‐examination of Oostenbroek et al. (2016): evidence for neonatal imitation of tongue protrusion |
| |
| Authors: | Andrew N. Meltzoff Lynne Murray Elizabeth Simpson Mikael Heimann Emese Nagy Jacqueline Nadel Eric J. Pedersen Rechele Brooks Daniel S. Messinger Leonardo De Pascalis Francys Subiaul Annika Paukner Pier F. Ferrari |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA;2. Department of Psychology, University of Reading, Reading, UK & Department of Psychology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa;3. Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA;4. Department of Behavioral Sciences and Learning, Link?ping University, Link?ping, Sweden;5. School of Psychology, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK;6. Centre Emotion, H?pital de la Salpêtrière, Paris, France;7. Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA;8. Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK;9. Department of Speech, Language & Hearing Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA;10. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, MD, USA;11. Institut des Sciences, Cognitives–Marc Jeannerod, Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France |
| |
| 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | Infant imitation Visual processing Motor behavior Perception‐action Social learning |
|
|
