Chapter 16. Multiple Motivations for Imitation in Infancy in 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 Neonatal imitation Deferred imitation Synchronic imitation Imitation of intended but incomplete acts Imitation from Television Changing motivations to imitate in development Echolalia 10 Closing- The multi-faceted nature of imitation 11 Discussion Contents

Infants imitate for a wide variety of reasons, in different developmental stages and contexts Imitation as an important form of pre-verbal communication: providing means that they can engage in social interaction Our aim in this chapter: to highlight imitation as a multi-faceted skill serving multiple purposes not only to acquire new skills but also to engage socially with others Overview of Chapter 16

Two primary ways in which imitation can be conceived: 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 infants: learning and communication. (Uˇzgiris,1981) Imitation of actions with objects

complex actions with appropriate toys complex actions with inappropriate toys simple actions banging a blockdrinking from a cupdrinking from a toy car 7 ½,10, 16, 22 -month-old 40 infants 4 groups Killen and Uzgiris (1981)

Imitation of actions with objects complex actions with appropriate toys complex actions with inappropriate toys simple actions banging a blockdrinking from a cupdrinking from a toy car 7 ½,10, 16, 22 -month-old Killen and Uzgiris (1981) 40 infants 4 groups The complex and multi-faceted developmental nature of imitation - 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 actions or bodily organs. 1. Neonatal imitation

Meltzoff and Moore (1977) the social relevance of neonatal imitation: imitation by newborns is crucial for initial identification of conspecifics and forging social relationships by imitating others, infants may begin to recognize the similarity between themselves and other people - enter into the social world of humans - develop concepts of self and others as animate, intentional agents. A fundamentally social act: to indicate their recognition difficult to conceive of it as a cognitive act, as it is not clear what sort of skill-learning would be implicated 1. Neonatal imitation

Meltzoff(1988) 2. Deferred imitation 36 infants, 14-month-olds Action: 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 actions 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 actions as based on a rational choice about how to proceed, given the situation. ↑ Corresponds to Meltzoff’s study

one-fifth of infants copied 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 (interpersonal) -To re-create a situation she found amusing (interpersonal) Piaget (1962)

3. Synchronic imitation begin towards the middle of the second year (18~24months) infants consistently alternate between model and imitator 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 experimenter, 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. Action With 3 objects, 2 actions each, continuously modeled for 15 seconds * 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 seconds. (Nielsen and Dissanayake, 2003) cf) The cited paper‘s main purpose was to compare between Immediate, Deferred and Synchronic imitation on 86 infants, 12~24 months of age Experiment on Synchronic imitation

3. Synchronic imitation older infants synchronically imitated because they were motivated to demonstrate connectedness and mutuality with the experimenter, more so than learning new behaviors Younger infants: actions were either too difficult or 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. Nature, 415, 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 Development, 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 Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour, 1, 305–18. - Uˇzgiris, I. (1981).Two functions of imitation during infancy. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 4, 1–12.