Re-examination of Oostenbroek et al. (2016): evidence for neonatal imitation of tongue protrusion

Andrew N. Meltzoff, Lynne Murray, Elizabeth A 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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere12609
JournalDevelopmental Science
Volume21
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2018

Fingerprint

Tongue
Research Design
Newborn Infant
Social Learning
Social Theory

Keywords

  • Infant imitation
  • Motor behavior
  • Perception-action
  • Social learning
  • Visual processing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Cognitive Neuroscience

Cite this

Re-examination of Oostenbroek et al. (2016) : evidence for neonatal imitation of tongue protrusion. / Meltzoff, Andrew N.; Murray, Lynne; Simpson, Elizabeth A; Heimann, Mikael; Nagy, Emese; Nadel, Jacqueline; Pedersen, Eric J.; Brooks, Rechele; Messinger, Daniel S; Pascalis, Leonardo De; Subiaul, Francys; Paukner, Annika; Ferrari, Pier F.

In: Developmental Science, Vol. 21, No. 4, e12609, 01.07.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Meltzoff, AN, Murray, L, Simpson, EA, Heimann, M, Nagy, E, Nadel, J, Pedersen, EJ, Brooks, R, Messinger, DS, Pascalis, LD, Subiaul, F, Paukner, A & Ferrari, PF 2018, 'Re-examination of Oostenbroek et al. (2016): evidence for neonatal imitation of tongue protrusion', Developmental Science, vol. 21, no. 4, e12609. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12609
Meltzoff, Andrew N. ; Murray, Lynne ; Simpson, Elizabeth A ; Heimann, Mikael ; Nagy, Emese ; Nadel, Jacqueline ; Pedersen, Eric J. ; Brooks, Rechele ; Messinger, Daniel S ; Pascalis, Leonardo De ; Subiaul, Francys ; Paukner, Annika ; Ferrari, Pier F. / Re-examination of Oostenbroek et al. (2016) : evidence for neonatal imitation of tongue protrusion. In: Developmental Science. 2018 ; Vol. 21, No. 4.
@article{0b0f29559edf45e0b3593b13ac0e72bf,
title = "Re-examination of Oostenbroek et al. (2016): evidence for neonatal imitation of tongue protrusion",
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, Motor behavior, Perception-action, Social learning, Visual processing",
author = "Meltzoff, {Andrew N.} and Lynne Murray and Simpson, {Elizabeth A} and Mikael Heimann and Emese Nagy and Jacqueline Nadel and Pedersen, {Eric J.} and Rechele Brooks and Messinger, {Daniel S} and Pascalis, {Leonardo De} and Francys Subiaul and Annika Paukner and Ferrari, {Pier F.}",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/desc.12609",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
journal = "Developmental Science",
issn = "1363-755X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Re-examination of Oostenbroek et al. (2016)

T2 - evidence for neonatal imitation of tongue protrusion

AU - Meltzoff, Andrew N.

AU - Murray, Lynne

AU - Simpson, Elizabeth A

AU - Heimann, Mikael

AU - Nagy, Emese

AU - Nadel, Jacqueline

AU - Pedersen, Eric J.

AU - Brooks, Rechele

AU - Messinger, Daniel S

AU - Pascalis, Leonardo De

AU - Subiaul, Francys

AU - Paukner, Annika

AU - Ferrari, Pier F.

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Infant imitation

KW - Motor behavior

KW - Perception-action

KW - Social learning

KW - Visual processing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046858779&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85046858779&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/desc.12609

DO - 10.1111/desc.12609

M3 - Article

C2 - 28952202

AN - SCOPUS:85046858779

VL - 21

JO - Developmental Science

JF - Developmental Science

SN - 1363-755X

IS - 4

M1 - e12609

ER -