Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Department of Psychology, University of Reading, Reading, UK & Department of Psychology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Dev Sci. 2018 Jul;21(4):e12609. doi: 10.1111/desc.12609. Epub 2017 Sep 27.
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.
自 Meltzoff 和 Moore(1977)报告人类新生儿的面部和手部模仿以来,婴儿早期模仿的意义、机制和功能一直受到积极讨论。Oostenbroek 等人(2016)声称要挑战早期模仿的存在,并反驳迄今为止提出的所有解释。如果这些说法属实,将对社会认知发展理论产生影响。在这里,我们发现了 Oostenbroek 等人的实验设计中的 11 个缺陷,这些缺陷使结果偏向于无效应。我们要求并获得了作者的原始数据。与作者的结论相反,新的分析显示在所有四个测试年龄(1、3、6 和 9 周龄)都存在明显的舌头突出模仿。我们解释了作者如何错过这种模式,并为未来的实验设计提供了五个建议。婴儿模仿提出了关于动作表示、社会学习和大脑行为关系的基本问题。关于模仿的起源和发展的争论反映了它对发展科学理论的重要性。