Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Re-examination of Oostenbroek et al. (2016): evidence for neonatal imitation of tongue protrusion.
Meltzoff, Andrew N; Murray, Lynne; Simpson, Elizabeth; Heimann, Mikael; Nagy, Emese; Nadel, Jacqueline; Pedersen, Eric J; Brooks, Rechele; Messinger, Daniel S; Pascalis, Leonardo De; Subiaul, Francys; Paukner, Annika; Ferrari, Pier F.
Afiliação
  • Meltzoff AN; Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
  • Murray L; Department of Psychology, University of Reading, Reading, UK & Department of Psychology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
  • Simpson E; Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA.
  • Heimann M; Department of Behavioral Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
  • Nagy E; School of Psychology, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
  • Nadel J; Centre Emotion, Hôpital de la Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
  • Pedersen EJ; Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.
  • Brooks R; Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
  • Messinger DS; Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA.
  • Pascalis L; Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
  • Subiaul F; Department of Speech, Language & Hearing Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
  • Paukner A; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, MD, USA.
  • Ferrari PF; Institut des Sciences, Cognitives-Marc Jeannerod, Université Claude Bernard, Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Dev Sci ; 21(4): e12609, 2018 Jul.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28952202
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.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Encéfalo / Cognição / Comportamento Imitativo Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Female / Humans / Infant / Newborn Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Encéfalo / Cognição / Comportamento Imitativo Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Female / Humans / Infant / Newborn Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article