Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:57:04.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The case against newborn imitation grows stronger

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2017

Susan S. Jones
Susan S. Jones*
Affiliation:
Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405. jones1@indiana.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The claim that human newborns imitate is widely accepted and influential. Yet reliable evidence that newborns match modeled behaviors is limited, and there is no empirically based explanation of how the knowledge that imitation requires could develop before birth. In their target article, Keven & Akins (K&A) contribute important new evidence to an alternative account of newborns' matching that challenges the newborn imitation claim.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e391
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. (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
Jones, S. (2017) Can newborn infants imitate? In: the collection “How We Develop—Developmental Systems and the Emergence of Complex Behaviors,” ed. Blumberg, M. S., Spencer, J. P. & Shenk, D., WIREs Cognitive Science 8(1–2): e1410. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1410.Google Scholar
Jones, S. S. (2009) The development of imitation in infancy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364(1528):2325–35.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. (2005) Imitation and other minds: The “like me” hypothesis. Perspectives on imitation: From neuroscience to social science 2:55–77.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. & Moore, M. K. (1997) Explaining facial imitation: A theoretical model. Early Development and Parenting 6(3–4):179–92.3.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oostenbroek, J., Suddendorf, T., Nielsen, M., Redshaw, J., Kennedy-Costantini, S., Davis, J., Clark, S. & Slaughter, V. (2016) Comprehensive longitudinal study challenges the existence of neonatal imitation in humans. Current Biology 26(10):1334–38. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.047.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ray, E. & Heyes, C. (2011) Imitation in infancy: The wealth of the stimulus. Developmental Science 14(1):92–105. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00961.x.Google Scholar
Simpson, E. A., Paukner, A., Suomi, S. J. & Ferrari, P. F. (2015) Neonatal imitation and its sensorimotor mechanism. In: New frontiers in mirror neuron research, ed. Ferrari, P. F. & Rizzolatti, G., pp. 296–314. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar