contents 16.4 imitation of intended but incomplete acts 16.5 imitation from television 16.6 changing...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Contents
16.4 Imitation of intended but incomplete acts 16.5 Imitation from Television 16.6 Changing motivations to imitate in development 16.7 Echolalia 16.8 The multi-faceted nature of imitation
2
16.4 Imitation of intended but incomplete acts
Meltzoff: The behavioral re-enactment paradigm
• Emphasize the cognitive function of imitation to provide for the acquisition of new skills
• Understanding the Intentions of Others: Re-Enactment of Intended Acts by 18-Month-Old Children, 1995
18-month-olds Demonstrator Failing to produce specific ac-tions on a range of novel objects(e.g. pulling apart a dumbbell apparatus).
Read Intention
Produced the outcomes
3
16.4 Imitation of intended but incomplete acts
4
16.4 Imitation of intended but incomplete acts
5
16.4 Imitation of intended but incomplete acts
6
16.4 Imitation of intended but incomplete acts
Able to ‘see through’ the physical behavior of another
Discern his or her intention to complete an action
The middle of the second year: Infants develop a capacity for reading intentionality into the behavior of others.
7
16.4 Imitation of intended but incomplete acts
18-month-olds Demonstrator
May have imitated
1. To learn how to correctly use the objects
2. Produced the unconsummated acts wished to demonstrate to the model that they understood what he or she was trying to do.
3. To share effect
4. To demonstrate and communicate a sense of mutuality with the model who failed to successfully perform the act.
5. Do not re-enact the incomplete actions of inanimate objects,
Social Motives
8
16.4 Imitation of intended but incomplete acts
9
16.4 Imitation of intended but incomplete acts
• Imitation in this paradigm is dependent on inter-personal factors• The possibility that an individual act of imitation can be simultaneously motivated by both cognitive and social motives.
18-month-olds 1. A fully visible person
saw attempted but incomplete actions demonstrated byone of our models
2. A person’s disembodied hands
3. A pair of disembodied mittens
4. A pair of mechanical robot pin-cers
Produced the target actions
Slaughter and Corbett: Differential copying of human and nonhuman models at 12 and 18 months of age, 2007
10
16.4 Imitation of intended but incomplete acts
1. A fully visible person
3. A pair of disembodied
mittens
2. A person’s disembodied hands
4. A pair of mechanical robot pincers
11
16.4 Imitation of intended but incomplete acts
12
16.5 Imitation from televisionVideo
Hayne Meltzoff
15-month-old infants failed Imitate actions from a televised model
6 month-olds imitated from a live model.
Third year, infants will imitate more actions when the model is live than when he or she is presented on TV.
65% of 14-month-old infants successfully replicated an action
they saw performed on TV by an experimenter.
A similar proportion (75%) of 14-month-olds replicated the same action when a live experimenter performed it.
Infants can imitate a televised model at similar levels to their imitations of a live model.
Due to age-related changes in a fundamental cognitive process.
When actions are modelled on TV, infants see a 2-D image that they must thenmatch to the 3-D target object presented in the test phase.
The overlap in surface featuresmay not be enough for infants or young children to perceive the functional similarity of objects presented via these different modes.
13
16.5 Imitation from television
The Discrepancy
Hayne Meltzoff
Used more complex three-step sequences
Used simple one-step actions
The televised modelwas presented on
previously recorded video
The televised model was presented
live, via closed-circuit monitor.
Was able to respond contingently to the infants, thereby providing a sense of social
Interactivity even over the TV screen
14
16.5 Imitation from television
Differences between imitation
from TV and imitation from a live model
The lack of opportunity for inter-personal interaction inherent
in pre-recorded video.
Hypothesis will be warranted
If the data are supportive, this would further highlight
how social motivations may influence
the expression of infants’ imitative skill
15
16.6 Changing motivations to imitate in development
How infants of varying ages respond differently to a model’s invitation to imitate
ages 12,18 and 24 months (n=204)
Hands
Require Switch manipulation
ExperimenterOperate the switches
Tools
16
16.6 Changing motivations to imitate in development
17
16.6 Changing motivations to imitate in development
Hand Condition Tool Condition
The older infants
Older infants imitate more consistently than do younger infants.
24-month-olds
No more likely to successfully open the boxes than 12-month-olds
12-month-olds only attempted to open the boxes with their hands
18
16.6 Changing motivations to imitate in development
Outcome
12-month-olds 18-month-olds 24-month-olds
focused on the outcome of the model’s actions
Showed reactions: intermediate
between the older and younger age groups.
focused on the specific form of the actions.
Tool usage: Watched as a model successfully used an object after first ‘attempting but failing’ to activate the switches by hand.
Subsequently used the object in an attempt to activate the switches.
Attention toReproduction of
Details of a model’s behavior
Older infants are not simply more competent imitators than younger infants, they engage in imitation differently. (Uzgiris 1981)
19
16.7 Echolalia
Video
Echolalia
Vocal Imitation
The echoing or repetition of vocalizations made by another person.
Copying the actions of another
Socially motivated
Mature forms of
Mimicry and parody
Positive (entertaining)
Negative (humiliating)
Social endsEvolve into
Mimicry: the act or art of copying or imitating closelyParody: an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.
20
16.8 The multi-faceted nature of imitation
So why do infants imitate?
The acquisition of knowl-edge about the world
Development of
a specific skill /
Acquire a new skill
To achieve
a desired outcome.
To initiate social interac-tion and
To maintain social interac-tion
Neonatal imitation
Synchronic Imitation
Echolalia
21
16.8 The multi-faceted nature of imitation
UzgirisInfants’ tendencies to imitate, and their motivations for doing so, develop and change in the first few years of life.
Imitation is not a unilateral cognitive achievement, but a rich cognitive and social tool.
ImitationFlexibly used as means to a variety of different ends that may be dictated by developmental stage, social context, immediate motivations or all of these
22
16.8 The multi-faceted nature of imitation
Forms and Functions
of
Imitation
Joint Attention
Language
Acquisition of Key
Social-Cognitive Skills
at the end of the first year of life.
23
16.8 The multi-faceted nature of imitation
Forms and Functions
of
Imitation
Complements of other modes
of communication
Performed for fun and entertainment
Be like someone else
Express mutuality to the imitative partner
24
16.8 The multi-faceted nature of imitation
Forms and Functions
of Imitation
Meta-representation
Mental time-travel
Complex cognitive skills
Cognitive (learning)
Social (communicative,
inter-personal, emotional)
25
16.8 The multi-faceted nature of imitation
Imitative ‘mirroring’
Neuropsychological
Findings
Imitation: Innate component
26
16.8 The multi-faceted nature of imitation
Imitation
Multiple Contexts for Multi-ple Purposes
Any Number of Personal
Inter-Personal
Situational Variables
Multiple MotivationsCognitive, Social,
Emotional ends
Highly flexible
27
Robot Learns like a Toddler
University of Plymouth