Imitation and Social Learning in Robots, Humans and Animals Behavioural, Social and Communicative Dimensions
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of plates
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Introduction: the constructive interdisciplinary viewpoint for understanding mechanisms and models of imitation and social learning
- Part I Correspondence problems and mechanisms
- 1 Imitation: thoughts about theories
- 2 Nine billion correspondence problems
- 3 Challenges and issues faced in building a framework for conducting research in learning from observation
- Part II Mirroring and ‘mind-reading’
- Part III What to imitate?
- Part IV Development and embodiment
- Part V Synchrony and turn-taking as communicative mechanisms
- Part VI Why imitate? – Motivations
- Part VII Social feedback
- Part VIII The ecological context
- Index
- Plate section
- References
1 - Imitation: thoughts about theories
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 December 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of plates
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Introduction: the constructive interdisciplinary viewpoint for understanding mechanisms and models of imitation and social learning
- Part I Correspondence problems and mechanisms
- 1 Imitation: thoughts about theories
- 2 Nine billion correspondence problems
- 3 Challenges and issues faced in building a framework for conducting research in learning from observation
- Part II Mirroring and ‘mind-reading’
- Part III What to imitate?
- Part IV Development and embodiment
- Part V Synchrony and turn-taking as communicative mechanisms
- Part VI Why imitate? – Motivations
- Part VII Social feedback
- Part VIII The ecological context
- Index
- Plate section
- References
Summary
Many behavioural features and psychological states can be transmitted between natural systems. A person or animal can acquire through observation of another a tendency to go to the same place, effect the same transformation of an object, perform the same body movements, make the same sounds, feel similar emotions or think similar thoughts. In our discussion of imitation we will focus on cases in which body movements are transmitted or ‘copied’ between model and observer, because these cases present a distinctive explanatory challenge.
The problem of producing a movement that matches one observed is made difficult due to the nature of the codes representing the observed and executed movements. The observer must formulate motor commands to match visual input. This is a special case of what has become known as the ‘correspondence problem’ (Alissandrakis et al., 2002; Nehaniv and Dautenhahn, 2001), and it is made particularly difficult when simple perceptual matching cannot be used to produce imitative movements, as in the following example. A tennis coach demonstrates a serve to a novice, which the novice then attempts to imitate. If the novice successfully imitates the coach's action the two actions will not ‘match’ from the novice's perspective. The novice will perceive the coach's actions as a whole body movement, in which the back arches and one arm moves in an overhead arc.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Imitation and Social Learning in Robots, Humans and AnimalsBehavioural, Social and Communicative Dimensions, pp. 23 - 34Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007
References
, and (2002). Imitation with ALICE: learning to imitate corresponding actions across dissimilar embodiments. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics: Part A – Systems and Humans, 32(4), 482–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2002). Lateralization in motor facilitation during action observation: a TMS study. Experimental Brain Research, 144(1), 127–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2000). Evidence for effector independent and dependent representations and their differential time course of acquisition during Motor Sequence Learning. Experimental Brain Research, 132, 149–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2005). Effector-dependent learning by observation of a finger movement sequence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(2), 262–75.Google ScholarPubMed
, , and (2000). Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain and Cognition, 44(2), 124–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2003). Imitative response tendencies in patients with frontal brain lesions. Neuropsychology, 17(2), 265–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1999). The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893–910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, G. (1994). Pavlovian conditioning: laws of association. In N. J. Mackintosh, (ed.), Animal Learning and Cognition. San Diego: Academic Press, 15–43.CrossRef
Hall, G. (1996). Learning about associatively activated stimulus representations: implications for acquired equivalence and perceptual learning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 24, 233–55.CrossRef
(2001). Causes and consequences of imitation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 253–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heyes, C. M. (2005). Imitation by association. In and (eds.), Perspectives on Imitation: from Cognitive Neuroscience to Social Science.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heyes, C. M., Bird, G., Johnson, H. L. and Haggard, P. (2005). Experience Modulates Automatic Imitation. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(2), 233–40.CrossRef
and (2002). Motor learning by observation: evidence from a serial reaction time task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A – Human Experimental Psychology, 55(2), 593–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2000). What is the significance of imitation in animals? In Advances in the Study of Behavior, Vol. 29, 215–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14(4), 334–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2002). Motor facilitation while observing hand actions: specificity of the effect and role of observer's orientation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 87(3), 1329–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (submitted). Effector-specific learning of hand target sequences. Experimental Brain Research.Google Scholar
and (1983). Newborn-infants imitate adult facial gestures. Child Development, 54(3), 702–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1994). Imitation, memory, and the representation of persons. Infant Behavior and Development, 17(1), 83–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1997). Explaining facial imitation: a theoretical model. Early Development and Parenting, 6(3–4), 179–92.3.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2001). Like me? – Measures of correspondence and imitation. Cybernetics and Systems, 32(1–2), 11–51.Google Scholar
Neumann, O. (1984). Automatic processing: a review of recent findings and a plea for an old theory. In and (eds.), Cognition and Motor Processes. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 255–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2005) Action observation supports effector-dependent learning of finger movement sequences. Experimental Brain Research, 165(1), 19–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , (1998). Characteristics of a long-term procedural skill in the monkey. Experimental Brain Research, 118(3), 293–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2000). Modulation of cortical excitability during action observation: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Neuroreport, 11(10), 2289–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2000). Correspondence effects with manual gestures and postures: a study of imitation. Journal of Experimental Psychology – Human Perception and Performance, 26(6), 1746–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2003). Action generation and action perception in imitation: an instance of the ideomotor principle. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B – Biological Sciences, 358, 501–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed