No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Imitation and self-recogntion in autism: In search of an explanation
... Studies have reported that neonatal infants can imitate facial, oral, and hand gestures (Anisfeld, 1996;Meltzoff & Moore, 1989;Nagy et al., 2020). In subsequent development, imitation consolidates during unstructured dyadic interactions (Nielsen et al., 2006;Rogers et al., 2003;Vivanti & Hamilton, 2014). Over the first two years of life imitation behaviors become progressively more complex, starting from vocalizations and simple actions directed on objects (e.g., banging a toy) and extending to meaningful and meaningless manual and facial gestures . ...
... Imitation appears as an essential tool for social learning and acquiring new skills during early childhood (Rogers & Pennington, 1991;Vivanti & Hamilton, 2014). Imitation promotes crucial developmental processes, including language (Charman et al., 2003;Nielsen et al., 2006) and social skills (Vivanti & Hamilton, 2014;Young et al., 2011), as well as theory of mind (Rogers & Pennington, 1991) and joint attention (Ezell et al., 2012). Such early language and social abilities are core areas of differences associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (Baron-Cohen, 2000;Boucher, 2012;Dawson et al., 2002), which is defined by difficulties in social communication and interaction and the presence of repetitive and restricted behaviors (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). ...
... When examining individual factors related to imitation performance, we found that chronological and developmental age were positively associated with imitation scores. This association underlines that imitation is a developmental process (Nielsen et al., 2006;Vivanti & Hamilton, 2014) as children with more verbal and non-verbal skills performed better. One major finding of the present study is the distinct patterns observed between MF and ML hand gestures. ...
Most studies in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) support a decrement in imitation performance. Factors related to visual attention and motor execution have been proposed to explain this phenomenon in ASD. However, studies investigated imitation with various methods, leading to inconsistent findings. Here, we examine imitation performance related to visual attention and motor execution. We focused on the imitation of meaningful and meaningless gestures, consistently reported as more affected than imitation of actions with objects in ASD. The imitation eye-tracking task consisted of a video of an actor demonstrating gestures and prompting children to imitate them. The demonstrations comprised meaningful and meaningless hand gestures, and meaningless facial gestures. We measured the fixation duration to the actor’ face during child-directed speech and gesture demonstrations. We video-recorded children to assess their performance. Our sample comprised 100 participants (3.55 ± 1.11 years old), including 84 children with ASD. The ASD and typically developing groups displayed the same visual attention toward gesture demonstrations, although children with ASD spent less time looking at the face during facial stimuli. Visual exploration of actors’ gestures did not influence imitation performance. Imitation of meaningful gestures was associated with less severe autistic symptoms, whereas imitation of meaningless gestures was correlated with higher non-verbal cognitive and fine-motor skills. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the complexity of imitation. We delineated the distinct nature of imitation of meaningful and meaningless gestures in children with ASD. We discuss clinical implications in relation to assessment and intervention programs.
... Similarly, Nadel and colleagues documented that the use of imitation for communicative purposes increases from 12 to 36 months and then declines commensurate with language mastery (Nadel, 2002Nadel, , 2006). Children's use of imitation as a communicative tool through the second year highlights views that imitation serves two complementary functions: A cognitive function that promotes learning about the world and an interpersonal function that promotes sharing with others (for review see Nielsen, Suddendorf & Dissanayake, 2006). Yet research investigating how the interpersonal function may impact children's copying behavior is rare. ...
... In contrast, when the model could not provide contingent social feedback because she appeared on videotape, the children were less likely to copy her exact actions. This supports U z giris' (1981) argument that children imitate for interpersonal reasons and is consistent with proposals that children can engage in imitation to establish and sustain social interactions (for review see Nielsen et al. , 2006). Further, this research adds a socially based explanation for prior findings that 24-month-olds tend to copy the specific behavioral means used by a model to achieve an outcome ( Huang, Heyes & Charman, 2006; Tennie, Call & Tomasello, 2006; Tomasello, Savage-Rumbaugh & Kruger, 1993), and will do so even if a simpler method is available (Horner & Whiten, 2005; Nagell et al. , 1993; Nielsen, 2006). ...
To date, developmental research has rarely addressed the notion that imitation serves an interpersonal, socially based function. The present research thus examined the role of social engagement on 24-month-olds' imitation by manipulating the social availability of the model. In Experiment 1, the children were more likely to imitate the exact actions of a live socially responsive model compared to a videotaped model who could not provide socially contingent feedback. In Experiment 2, the children were more likely to imitate the exact actions of a model with whom they could communicate via a closed-circuit TV system than a videotaped model who could not provide interactive feedback. This research provides clear evidence that children's imitative behavior is affected by the social nature of the model. These findings are discussed in relation to theories on imitation and the video deficit.
... Imitation recognition is divided into two categories: implicit recognition, whereby the individual being imitated simply directs their gaze toward an imitative experimenter rather than a non-imitative experimenter and explicit recognition, whereby the individual being imitated employs atypical behaviors to assess the actions of the imitator. For example, testing behaviors are defined as unexpected and sudden behaviors performed by the subject while gazing at the imitator (Asendorpf et al., 1996;Meltzoff, 2002;Nielsen et al., 2006). These aptly named behaviors are produced as a means of testing the contingency between the imitator and the imitatee, much like contingency actions often described in children (24 month olds) and apes when looking into a mirror (Gallup, 1970;De Veer and Van Den Bos, 1999;Bard et al., 2006). ...
Imitation recognition provides a viable platform from which advanced social cognitive skills may develop. Despite evidence that non-human primates are capable of imitation recognition, how this ability is related to social cognitive skills is unknown. In this study, we compared imitation recognition performance, as indicated by the production of testing behaviors, with performance on a series of tasks that assess social and physical cognition in 49 chimpanzees. In the initial analyses, we found that males were more responsive than females to being imitated and engaged in significantly greater behavior repetitions and testing sequences. We also found that subjects who consistently recognized being imitated performed better on social but not physical cognitive tasks, as measured by the Primate Cognitive Test Battery. These findings suggest that the neural constructs underlying imitation recognition are likely associated with or among those underlying more general socio-communicative abilities in chimpanzees. Implications regarding how imitation recognition may facilitate other social cognitive processes, such as mirror self-recognition, are discussed.
... The natural course of imitation development seems to involve an early stage during which infants are capable of a limited number of imitative responses (Heimann, Nelson, & Schaller, 1989;Jones, 2009;Legerstee, 1991;Meltzoff & Prinz, 2002), followed by the emergence and rapid consolidation of synchronic imitation during dyadic exchanges between 18 and 24 months (Nielsen, Suddendorf, & Dissanayake, 2006;Trevarthen, 2001). The subsequent increase in frequency and complexity of imitative behaviors reflects the development of progressively more sophisticated cognitive and social abilities. ...
... The natural course of imitation development seems to involve an early stage during which infants are capable of a limited number of imitative responses (Heimann, Nelson, & Schaller, 1989;Jones, 2009;Legerstee, 1991;Meltzoff & Prinz, 2002), followed by the emergence and rapid consolidation of synchronic imitation during dyadic exchanges between 18 and 24 months (Nielsen, Suddendorf, & Dissanayake, 2006;Trevarthen, 2001). The subsequent increase in frequency and complexity of imitative behaviors reflects the development of progressively more sophisticated cognitive and social abilities. ...
Imitation plays a central role in social and cognitive development. A substantial number of studies have documented differences in the way individuals with autism imitate others. These differences include a reduced frequency of spontaneous imitation and a diminished accuracy of imitative performance. Abnormalities are more pronounced with imitation tasks involving actions that are unfamiliar and do not have a clear goal. Moreover imitation performance appears to decrease as the social-processing and motor demands in the task increase. The nature, causes, and treatment of imitation differences in ASD are discussed.
... Visual self-recognition is another milestone that is often reported as pivotal to language development (Nielsen, Suddendorf, & Dissanayake, 2006). More research is needed to explore nonvisual forms of self-recognition and the relationship of self-recogni-tion and the broader concepts of individuation and self-awareness to the development of communication and language in children with multiple disabilities and blindness or deaf-blindness. ...
... To be classified as synchronic imitation, children must not only reproduce the actions of the experimenter but must do so continuously and simultaneously with the experimenter. As there are no clear instrumental outcomes to be achieved, it has been argued that engaging in bouts of synchronic imitation is driven by affiliative motivations [Nadel, 2002; Nadel et al., 1999; Nielsen, Suddendorf, & Dissanayake, 2006; Slaughter, Nielsen, & Enchelmaier, 2008]. Whether or not children with autism engage in synchronic imitation in this way has yet to be experimentally established. ...
Children with autism show clear deficits in copying others' bodily oriented actions whereas their capacity for replicating others' object-directed actions appears relatively spared. One explanation is that unlike bodily oriented actions, object-directed actions have tangible, functional outcomes and hence rely far less on social motivations for their production. To investigate this, we compared the performance of a group of children with high-functioning autism (HFA) and a group of typically developing (TD) children on two distinct object-directed tasks that are considered highly social: overimitation and synchronic imitation. Our findings were surprising. The HFA children copied all of a modeling adult's actions, including those that had no function or purpose (i.e. they overimitated), and they entered into extended bouts repeating an arbitrary action along with the adult who had a similar object to play with (i.e. they engaged in synchronic imitation). Moreover, they did so at rates indistinguishable from the TD children. This work demonstrates that the capacity and propensity for overimitation and synchronic imitation are intact in children with HFA, and questions whether socially based imitation should be considered an autism-specific deficit. Autism Res 2012, ●●:●●-●●. © 2012 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
... This may make them more willing to adopt a novel word they observe being used by a stranger, than to adopt an idiosyncratic action, particularly one demonstrated by someone they do not know well. While most research on imitation in young children focuses on its cognitive function, imitation also serves an important interpersonal function (Carpenter, 2006;Nielsen, Suddendorf, & Dissanayake, 2006;Uzgiris, 1981). Because the actions used in the present study were arbitrary, children needed a reason to use them rather than a simpler action; e.g., touching the light with their hand rather than their head (Gergely, et al., 2002). ...
Young children's ability to learn something new from a third-party interaction may be related to the ability to imagine themselves in the third-party interaction. This imaginative ability presupposes an understanding of self-other equivalence, which is manifested in an objective understanding of the self and an understanding of others' subjective perspectives. The current study measured imitative learning of a novel action seen only in a third-party interaction, mirror self-recognition, and perspective taking in a group of 48 18- to 20-month-olds. Patterns of performance suggest that understanding self-other equivalence is related to third-party learning.
... Researchers interested in autism have used DS as a prototypical case of mental retardation. By comparing the imitation performance of children with autism to that of children with DS, they have been able to identify deficits that are specific to autism rather than being shared by other conditions associated with mental disabilities (Knott, Lewis, & Williams, 1995;Knott, Lewis, & Williams, 2007;Libby et al., 1997;Nielsen, Suddendorf, & Dissanayake, 2006;Rogers, Hepburn, Stackhouse, & Wehner, 2003). For example, in two remarkable studies Knott and colleagues observed sibling pairs, including preschoolers with DS and autism, in a free play situation to investigate spontaneous imitation. ...
The emergence of the Down syndrome (DS) behavioural phenotype during early development may be of great importance for early intervention. The main goal of this study was to investigate the good-imitator-poor-talker developmental profile in DS at preschool age. Twenty children with Down syndrome (DS; mean nonverbal mental age
NMA 1 y10m) and 15 children with non-specific mental retardation (NS-MR; mean NMA 1 y11 m) participated in this study. The Preschool Imitation and Praxis Scale (PIPS) and the Dutch version of the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventories (N-CDI)
were used to determine absolute and relative (contrasted to a nonverbal mental age reference) imitation and language abilities. Results revealed that there was clear evidence for a good-imitator-poor-talker profile in preschoolers with DS. However, only the
advanced bodily imitation ability seems to be syndrome-specific. Clinical implications of these findings are considered.
Background
Imitation behaviors develop very early and increase in frequency and complexity during childhood. Most studies in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) support a general decrement in imitation performance. To better understand this phenomenon in ASD, factors related to visual attention and motor execution have been proposed. However, these studies used various paradigms and explored different types of imitation in heterogeneous samples, leading to inconsistent findings. The present study examines imitation performance related to visual attention and motor execution. We focused on gesture imitation, consistently reported as more affected than imitation of actions with objects in ASD. We also investigated the influence of meaningful and meaningless gestures on imitation performance.
Methods
Our imitation eye-tracking task used a video of an actor who demonstrated gestures and prompted children to imitate them. The demonstrations comprised three types of gestures: meaningful (MF) and meaningless (ML) hand gestures, and meaningless facial gestures. We measured the total fixation duration to the actor’ face during child-directed speech and gesture demonstrations. During the eye-tracking task, we video-recorded children to later assess their imitation performance. Our sample comprised 100 participants, among which were 84 children with ASD (aged 3.55 ± 1.11 years).
Results
Our results showed that the ASD and typically developing (TD) groups globally displayed the same visual attention toward the face (during child-directed speech) and toward gesture demonstrations, although children with ASD spent less time fixating on the face during FAC stimuli. Visual exploration of actors’ faces and gestures did not influence imitation performance. Rather, imitation performance was positively correlated with chronological and developmental age. Moreover, imitation of MF gestures was associated with less severe autistic symptoms, whereas imitation of ML gestures was positively correlated with higher non-verbal cognitive skills and fine motor skills.
Conclusions
These findings contribute to a better understanding of the complexity of imitation. We delineated the distinct nature of imitation of MF and ML hand gestures in children with ASD. We discuss clinical implications in relation to assessment and intervention programs.
This thesis tackles this issue in a structural manner, on several steps. The first research deals with the assimilation of some techniques of functional assessment of the children with autism and other associated disabilities, children which are very difficult to asses because of their severe degree of disability. The second research focuses on the development of joint attention ability seen as the basis for a subsequent functioning as close to the normal parameters as possible. The therapeutic process was structured on stages and conceived in accordance with the particularities and characteristics of each case, these being the premises for the program’s success.
Humans engage in a multitude of complex social activities that, depending on such things as shared history, proximity, language and identification, can be engaged in differently from one community to another. Humans are a cultural species: But we are not the only ones. An array of behaviours indicative of cultural variation has been identified in chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, that has yet to be found in any other nonhuman animal. However, the breadth and depth of these behaviours seem insignificant when compared to the profound cultural variation inherent in human social behaviour. The source of differences between humans and chimpanzees in the proliferation of cultural traditions may be attributed to differences in the way these species engage in imitation. Human children show a strong tendency to imitate the actions of others at the expense of producing the functional outcomes of those actions, a tendency that chimpanzees do not show. It is argued that this tendency is an outcome of young children’s motivation to be social and to interact with others, and it is this that has driven the proliferation of human culture.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.