Behavioral and Brain Sciences Commentary Proposal on Keven and Akins "Neonatal Imitation in Context: SensoryMotor Development in the Perinatal Period": There Is No Compelling Evidence that Human Neonates Imitate --Manuscript Draft-Manuscript Number: Full Title:
Commentary Proposal on Keven and Akins "Neonatal Imitation in Context: SensoryMotor Development in the Perinatal Period": There Is No Compelling Evidence that Human Neonates Imitate
Short Title:
There Is No Compelling Evidence that Human Neonates Imitate
Article Type:
Commentary Article
Corresponding Author:
Siobhan Kennedy-Costantini University of Queensland AUSTRALIA
Corresponding Author Secondary Information: Corresponding Author's Institution:
University of Queensland
Corresponding Author's Secondary Institution: First Author:
Siobhan Kennedy-Costantini
First Author Secondary Information: Order of Authors:
Siobhan Kennedy-Costantini Janine Oostenbroek Thomas Suddendorf Mark Nielsen Jonathan Redshaw Jacqueline Davis Sally Clark Virginia Slaughter
Order of Authors Secondary Information: Abstract:
Keven and Akins propose that neonatal "imitation" is a function of newborns' spontaneous oral stereotypies and should be viewed within the context of normal aerodigestive development. Their proposal is in line with the result of our recent large longitudinal study that found no compelling evidence for neonatal imitation. Together these works prompt reconsideration of the developmental origin of genuine imitation.
Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Commentary Article
Click here to download Commentary Article BBS commentary Keven_Akins_Kennedy-Costantini_etal.docx
RE: Commentary Proposal on Keven and Akins "Neonatal Imitation in Context: Sensory-Motor Development in the Perinatal Period" “There Is No Compelling Evidence that Human Neonates Imitate” Authors: Siobhan Kennedy-Costantini*1, Janine Oostenbroek2, Thomas Suddendorf1, Mark Nielsen1,4, Jonathan Redshaw1, Jacqueline Davis3, Sally Clark1, and Virginia Slaughter1 1
School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Australia
2
Department of Psychology, The University of Virginia
3
Department of Psychology, Cambridge University
4
Faculty of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
* Corresponding author Contact:
[email protected] Siobhan Kennedy c/o Sally Clark Early Cognitive Development Centre, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia QLD 4072
Abstract Keven and Akins propose that neonatal “imitation” is a function of newborns’ spontaneous oral stereotypies and should be viewed within the context of normal aerodigestive development. Their proposal is in line with the result of our recent large longitudinal study that found no compelling evidence for neonatal imitation. Together these works prompt reconsideration of the developmental origin of genuine imitation. Keywords neonatal imitation, infant development, cognitive behavior, tongue protrusion Commentary The veracity of neonatal imitation has been debated ever since Meltzoff and Moore (1977) first presented evidence to suggest newborns imitate adult oral and manual gestures. In an attempt to chart the prevalence of newborn imitation and determine its relationship with later infant development (Suddendorf et al., 2013) we undertook the largest and most comprehensive study of neonatal imitation to date (Oostenbroek et al., 2016). We tested a sample of 106 infants four times, when infants were one, three, six and nine weeks of age. A female adult experimenter modeled nine social gestures: four facial gestures (tongue protrusion, mouth opening, happy face and sad face), two hand gestures (index finger protrusion and grasping) and three vocal gestures (MMM sound, EEE sound and tongue clicks). Additionally, two non-social models were included to test alternative interpretations of neonatal imitation (tube protrusion simulating tongue protrusion and box opening simulating mouth opening). Across this range of gestures there was no sign that infants selectively imitated any of the modeled gestures. In our analyses of infants’ responses to these models (as outlined above) we replicated some previous findings in restricted subsections of the data. Specifically, when we used the common cross-target procedure of comparing infants’ tongue protrusions in response to the matching model with their tongue protrusions in response to the control model of mouth opening (see Meltzoff & Moore, 1977), we found that infants produced significantly more matching responses than non-matching responses at one and nine weeks of age. However, this effect disappeared when we used other gestures as the control model. Since there is no a priori reason to favour mouth opening as the comparison control model over any other
control model (e.g., happy face), these cross-sectional findings also do not provide evidence of newborn imitation. This suggests that failure to include adequate control conditions or test infants across multiple time points in previous studies has resulted in the false impression that infants selectively copy tongue protrusions, thereby perpetuating the idea that newborn imitation exists.
In their target article, Keven and Akins offer a novel explanation for why tongue protrusion in particular may be falsely identified as imitation. They argue that what others have interpreted as imitation may be spontaneous oral activity—with tongue protrusion being characteristic—arising from maturation of the infant's respiratory and digestive systems. Keven and Akins not only offer a rationale for why newborns might engage in tongue protrusion behaviors at such high rates but also provide a compelling and consistent argument for why this gesture may decline after the first three months of life. We welcome this contribution as it provides another reason why previous data claiming evidence of neonatal imitation, and tongue protrusion imitation in particular, should be interpreted with caution.
In Section 7 of their article, Keven and Akins cite our research while discussing the frequency of newborn behaviors. They state "Of these ‘early’ stereotypies, TP/R and MO/C and index finger protrusion are produced with the highest frequencies during the first week after birth (Oostenbroek et al., 2016)." We take this opportunity to clarify that the high frequencies of these behaviors do not provide evidence of imitation. Though one-week-old infants in our sample engaged in higher levels of tongue protrusion, mouth opening and index finger protrusion than any of the other modeled gestures at this age, they produced these behaviors as often in response to many of the control models as they did to the corresponding matching models. Keven and Akins’ alternative explanation for the 'imitation' of oral gestures, coupled with our comprehensive, longitudinal data, supports the conclusion that imitation does not exist in the newborn period. Rather, its apparent expression is due to the maturation of developmental mechanisms that may have nothing to do with social learning.
After more than 30 years of controversy over its existence in the newborn period (see Ray & Heyes, 2011; Oostenbroek et al., 2013; Simpson et al., 2014; Suddendorf et al., 2013) driven largely by studies using cross-sectional designs and only tongue protrusion as the model gesture, Keven and Akins article, along with our findings, necessitates a reframing of imitation research. These data suggest that neonatal imitation is an illusion and should
encourage new perspectives and research goals. There is no longer a compelling empirical basis for the idea that human neonates imitate. Developmental scientists should reconsider the origin of imitation, and explore novel hypotheses about the functions of newborn oral behaviors, starting with Keven and Akins’ well-articulated and compelling account.
References
Keven, N., & Akins, K. (2016). Neonatal Imitation in Context : Sensory-Motor Development in the Perinatal Period. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, (2). Jacobson, S. W. (1979). Matching behavior in the young infant. Child Development, 50(2), 425–430. Journal Article. http://doi.org/10.2307/1129418 Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1977). Imitation of Facial and Manual Gestures by Human Neonates. Science, 198(4312), 75–78. JOUR. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.198.4312.75 Oostenbroek, J., Slaughter, V., Nielsen, M., & Suddendorf, T. (2013). Why the confusion around neonatal imitation. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 31, 328-341. Oostenbroek, J., Suddendorf, T., Nielsen, M., Redshaw, J., Kennedy-Costantini, S., Davis, J., … Slaughter, V. (2016). Comprehensive Longitudinal Study Challenges the Existence of Neonatal Imitation in Humans. Current Biology, 1–5. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.047 Ray, E., & Heyes, C. (2011). Imitation in infancy: The wealth of the stimulus. Developmental Science, 14, 92–105. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00961.x
Simpson, E.A., Murray, L., Paukner, A., and Ferrari, P.F. (2014). The mirror neuron system as revealed through neonatal imitation: presence from birth, predictive power and evidence of plasticity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 369, 20130289. Suddendorf, T., Oostenbroek, J., Nielsen, M., & Slaughter, V. (2013). Is newborn imitation developmentally homologue to later social-cognitive developments? Developmental Psychobiology, 55, 52-58.
