Chapter 16. Multiple Motivations for Imitation in

Infancyin Imitation and Social Learning in Robots

by Mark Nielsen and Virginia Slaughter

JIHYUN LEE

Program in Cognitive Science

Course: Robots Learning from Humans

11/13/2015

Seoul National University

1• Overview of Chapter 16

2• Intro- Imitation of actions with objects

3• 16.1 Neonatal imitation

4• 16.2 Deferred imitation

5• 16.3 Synchronic imitation

6

• 16.4 Imitation of intended but incomplete acts

7• 16.5 Imitation from Television

8

• 16.6 Changing motivations to imitate in devel-opment

9• 16.7 Echolalia

10

• Closing- The multi-faceted nature of imita-tion

11

• Discussion

Contents

Infants imitate for a wide variety of rea-sons, in different developmental stages and contexts

Imitation as an important form of pre-verbal communi-cation: providing means that they can engage in social interaction

Our aim in this chapter:to highlight imitation as a multi-faceted skill serving multiple purposesnot only to acquire new skills but also to engage socially with others

Overview of Chapter 16

Two primary ways in which imitation can be con-ceived:

1. cognitive function: promoting infants’ learning about events in the world 2. interpersonal function: promoting infants’ sharing of experience with others

Two distinct functions of Imitation in human in-fants: learning and communication.

(Uˇzgiris ,1981)

Imitation of actions with objects

Imitation of actions with objects

complex actions with appropriate toys

complex actions with inappropriate toys

simple actions

banging a block drinking from a cupdrinking from a toy car7 ½ ,10, 16, 22-month-old

40 infants4 groups

Killen and Uzgiris (1981)

Imitation of actions with objects

complex actions with appropriate toys

complex actions with inappropriate toys

simple actions

banging a block drinking from a cupdrinking from a toy car7 ½ ,10, 16, 22-month-old

Killen and Uzgiris (1981)

40 infants4 groups

The complex and multi-faceted developmental nature of im-itation

- young infants imitate to satisfy cognitive motivations - older infants imitate to satisfy social motivations

Infants of different ages may imitate the same behavior for entirely different reasons

Meltzoff and Moore (1977)

Neonates imitated actions with several parts of the body,without confusing either ac-tionsor bodily organs.

1. Neonatal imitation

Meltzoff and Moore (1977)

the social relevance of neonatal imitation:imitation by newborns is crucial for initial identification of conspecificsand forging social relationships

by imitating others, infants may begin to recognize the similarity between themselves and other peo-ple - enter into the social world of humans- develop concepts of self and others as animate, intentional agents.

A fundamentally social act: to indicate their recognitiondifficult to conceive of it as a cognitive act, as it is not clear what sort of skill-learning would be impli-cated

1. Neonatal imitation

Meltzoff(1988)

2. Deferred imitation

36 infants, 14-month-oldsAction: leaned forward and touched the top of a plastic box with his head to illuminate the box

A week later, 67 % produced the behavior of the experimenter

Infants didn’t use their hands:focused on copying the model’s specific ac-tions as much as the outcome modeled

Gergely et al. (2002)

Modification: wrapping himself and occupying his hands in a blanket- giving a clear reason to use his head

21% Imitated by using head

69% Imitated by using head

2. Deferred imitation

remaining 69 % Used their hands

: might judged his actionsas based on a rational choice about how to pro-ceed, given the situation.

↑Corresponds to Meltzoff’s study

one-fifth of infantscopied the model’s head action: chose to focus on the model than the outcome (= how they do it, social function)

Infants’ behavior may involve both cognitive and social motivations -Infants’ immediate interests and needs -their perceptions of the situation -the demands of the task -their level of understanding

: may all affect how infants react when to imitate

21%Imitated

by using head

2. Deferred imitation

Gergely et al. (2002) Cf1.

2. Deferred imitation

Cf2.Ex) Imitating temper tantrum thrown by a friend- To understand the puzzling event (cognitive)- To evoke her no longer present friend (interper-

sonal)- To re-create a situation she found amusing (inter-

personal)Piaget (1962)

3. Synchronic imitation

begin towards the middle of the second year (18~24months)

infants consistently alternate between model and imita-tor while playing with similar objects, using them in a similar postural, motoric and symbolic way.

In controlled studies of synchronic imitation,an adult experimenter continuously models actions on an object to infants who have a duplicate of the object available to them.

To show synchronic imitation, infants must not only reproduce the actions of the ex-perimenter, but do so continuously and simultaneously with him or her.

3. Synchronic imitation

Experimenter - In a playroom, sat in front of the infant- took an object and offered the infant a duplicate of the object.

ActionWith 3 objects, 2 actions each, continuously modeled for 15 sec-onds

* Determined as synchronic imitation when the infant took the duplicate object, looked at the experimenter within 3 seconds, and imitated the action of the experimenter for at least 3 sec-onds.

(Nielsen and Dissanayake, 2003)

cf)The cited paper‘s main purpose was to compare be-tweenImmediate, Deferred and Synchronic imitationon 86 infants, 12~24 months of age

Experiment on Synchronic imitation

3. Synchronic imitation

older infants synchronically imi-tated because they were motivated to demonstrate connectedness andmutuality with the experimenter, more so than learning new behav-iors

Younger infants:actions were either too difficultor of too little interest

3. Synchronic imitation

The synchronic imitation task also presents infants with a means of engaging in inter-personal interaction:

An evidence of increasing tendency for infants to imitate for purely social reasons, in the second year of life.

References

- Gergely, G., Bekkering, H. and Kiraly, I. (2002). Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Na-ture, 415, 755.- Killen, M. and Uˇzgiris, I. (1981). Imitation of actions with objects: the role of social meaning. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 138, 219–29.- Piaget, J. (1962). Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood. New York: Norton.- Meltzoff, A.N. (1985). Immediate and deferred imitation in fourteen and twentyfour-month-old infants. Child Development, 56, 62–72.- Meltzoff, A.N. (1988). Infant imitation after a 1-week delay: long-termmemory for novel acts and multiple stimuli. Developmental Psychology, 24, 470–6.- Meltzoff, A.N. and Moore, M. K. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, 198, 75–8.- Meltzoff, A. N. and Moore, M. K. (1992). Early imitation within a functional framework: the importance of person identity, movement and development. Infant Behaviour and Develop-ment, 15, 83–9.- Nielsen, M. and Dissanayake, C. (2003). A longitudinal study of immediate, deferred, and synchronic imitation through the second year. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Artificial Intelli-gence and the Simulation of Behaviour, 1, 305–18.- Uˇzgiris, I. (1981).Two functions of imitation during infancy. International Journal of Behav-ioral Development, 4, 1–12.