Defining Elemental Imitation Mechanisms: A Comparison of Cognitive and Motor-Spatial Imitation Learning Across Object- and Computer-Based Tasks

Abstract

During the first 5 years of life, the versatility, breadth, and fidelity with which children imitate change dramatically. Currently, there is no model to explain what underlies such significant changes. To that end, the present study examined whether task-independent but domain-specific—elemental—imitation mechanism explains performance across imitation tasks or domains. Preschool-age children (n = 156) were tested on 4 imitation tasks, 2 object-based (animal, puzzle box) and 2 computer-based (cognitive, motor-spatial). All tasks involved 3 serial actions. The animal task involved making an animal face, and the puzzle box task involved manipulating a box to retrieve a reward. The cognitive task involved responding to 3 different pictures in a specific picture order, and the motor-spatial task involved responding to 3 identical pictures in a specific spatial order. A principal component analysis including performance on all 4 tasks produced 2 components: “cognitive imitation” (cognitive and animal tasks) and “motor-spatial imitation” (motor-spatial and puzzle box tasks). Regression analyses replicated these results. These findings provide preliminary support for the hypothesis that underlying performance across these different tasks involves multiple—elemental—imitation mechanisms for learning and copying domain-specific information across tasks.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the many student volunteers in the Social Cognition Lab of the George Washington University for assisting with recruitment and data collection, and we extend our gratitude to the staff of the Smithsonian Institute, National Zoological Park, and visiting children whose participation made this study possible.

FUNDING

This study was supported by University Facilitating Funds (George Washington University) and two National Science Foundation grants: one to F. Subiaul (BCS-0748717) and another to R. Barr and P. Gerhardstein (BCS-1023772).

Notes

¹ Video of cognitive task: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzwOMF8W5Wc

² Video of motor-spatial task: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8pjTME_ugY

³ A subset of 30 children did not complete the training phase for the cognitive and motor-spatial touch-screen tasks. Their scores were compared to the scores of those who completed the training phase and did not differ on any measure (ps > .80). Data were collapsed across children for all analyses.

⁴ Both the model and the computer provided feedback following each response to equate other factors that might influence performance across tasks and conditions. Specifically, social feedback consisted of eye contact, smiles, etc., and verbal reinforcement (e.g., “That’s right!” or “Oops! That’s not right!”).

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported by University Facilitating Funds (George Washington University) and two National Science Foundation grants: one to F. Subiaul (BCS-0748717) and another to R. Barr and P. Gerhardstein (BCS-1023772).