Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:48:53.553Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Turning the tide: A plea for cognitively lean interpretations of infant behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2017

Miriam Beisert ,
Norbert Zmyj  and
Moritz M. Daum
Miriam Beisert
Affiliation:
Psychologisches Institut, Universität Zürich, 8050 Zürich, Switzerland. [email protected]@psychologie.uzh.chhttps://www.psychologie.uzh.ch/de/fachrichtungen/devpsy/personen/mbeisert.htmlhttp://www.psychologie.uzh.ch/de/fachrichtungen/devpsy/personen/daum.html
Norbert Zmyj
Affiliation:
Institut für Psychologie, Technische Universität Dortmund, Psychologie und Soziologie, 44227 Dortmund, Germany. [email protected]://www.psych.tu-dortmund.de/cms/psych/de/Home/Mitarbeiter/psychologie_ifp/Zmyj_Norbert.html
Moritz M. Daum
Affiliation:
Psychologisches Institut, Universität Zürich, 8050 Zürich, Switzerland. [email protected]@psychologie.uzh.chhttps://www.psychologie.uzh.ch/de/fachrichtungen/devpsy/personen/mbeisert.htmlhttp://www.psychologie.uzh.ch/de/fachrichtungen/devpsy/personen/daum.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Keven & Akins (K&A) revisit the controversial subject of neonatal imitation through analysing the physiological foundations of neonatal spontaneous behaviour. Consequently, they regard imitative capacities in neonates as unlikely. We welcome this approach as an overdue encouragement to refuse cognitively rich interpretations as far as cognitively lean interpretations are conceivable, and apply this rationale to other phenomena in early childhood development.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e383
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anisfeld, M. (1991) Review: Neonatal imitation. Developmental Review 11(1):60–97.Google Scholar
Anisfeld, M. (1996) Only tongue protrusion modeling is matched by neonates. Developmental Review 16(2):149–61. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1996.0006.Google Scholar
Beisert, M., Zmyj, N., Liepelt, R., Jung, F., Prinz, W. & Daum, M. M. (2012) Rethinking ‘rational imitation’ in 14-month-old infants: A perceptual distraction approach. PLoS ONE 7(3):e32563.Google Scholar
Csibra, G. & Gergely, G. (2009) Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13:148–53.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2000) Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4:14–21.Google Scholar
Gergely, G., Bekkering, H. & Király, I. (2002) Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature 415(6873):755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heyes, C. (2014) False belief in infancy: A fresh look. Developmental Science 17:647–59.Google Scholar
Heyes, L. A. & Watson, J. S. (1981) Neonatal imitation: Fact or artifact? Developmental Psychology 17:655–60.Google Scholar
Keven, N. & Akins, K. (2016) Neonatal imitation in context: Sensory-motor development in the perinatal period. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1–107. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16000911.Google Scholar
Koepke, J. E., Hamm, M. & Legerstee, M. (1983) Neonatal imitation: Two failures to replicate. Infant Behavior and Development 6:97–102.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. & Moore, M. K. (1977) Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science 198(4312):75–78. Available at: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/198/4312/75.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. & Moore, M. K. (1999a) Persons and representations: Why infant imitation is important for theories of human development. In: Imitation in infancy, ed. Nadel, J. & Butterworth, G., pp. 9–35. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Onishi, K. H. & Baillargeon, R. (2005) Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science 308:255–58.Google Scholar
Oostenbroek, J., Slaughter, V., Nielsen, M. & Suddendorf, T. (2013) Why the confusion around neonatal imitation? A review. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 31(4):328–41.Google Scholar
Paulus, M., Hunnius, S., Vissers, M. & Bekkering, H. (2011) Imitation in infancy: Rational or motor resonance? Child Development 82:1047–57.Google Scholar
Southgate, V. & Vernetti, A. (2014) Belief-based action prediction in preverbal infants. Cognition 130:1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szufnarowska, J., Rohlfing, K. J., Fawcett, C. & Gredebäck, G. (2014) Is ostension any more than attention? Scientific Reports 4:5304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed