Imitation of Modeled Manipulation of Objects by Children and Adults

Abstract

Prior studies have investigated imitation by extracting a hierarchy of goals from the key elements of action models. The theoretical model is that all ages practice a method of imitation in which goal or target elements are more easily imitated correctly, while nontarget elements are not. The present study compared error responses among 32 children and 32 adults when imitating an action model for manipulating concrete objects constructed of five elements. The results indicated that the elements for which error responses were easily produced and those for which error responses were more difficult to produce were approximately the same in children and adults. It showed that the imitation mechanisms were similar in children and adults. In addition, children had higher omissions and error responses than adults. This result suggests that imitation and differences in working memory capacity may be related.

Movement or goal: Goal salience and verbal cues affect preschoolers’ imitation of action components

“…These findings contrast with evidence that 2-and 3-year-olds imitate the details of the model's actions more precisely when they have not received prior information about the final action goal (Carpenter et al, 2002;Williamson & Markman, 2006). Because encoding and reproducing observed actions puts high demands on young children's information processing (Mizuguchi et al, 2010), it would be interesting to study how exactly communicative cues help children of different ages to identify the relevant parts of an action demonstration.…”

“…For preschoolers, the preference for the goal in the presence, and for the movement in the absence, of target objects occurred from 3 to 6 years of age, with no significant differences between the age groups (Mizuguchi, Sugimura, & Deguchi, 2009;Perra & Gattis, 2008). Likewise, although 4-to 6-year-olds had a higher overall error rate than adults, the response patterns were comparable in children and adults (Mizuguchi, Suzuki, Sugimura, & Deguchi, 2010; see also Wohlschläger et al, 2003).…”

“…In contrast, when the reason for an action is clear, children are more likely to deviate from the observed movements and to use their own means to achieve the goal. It is interesting to note that this account can explain the different patterns of 3-to 6-year-olds' selective imitation Gleissner et al, 2000;Mizuguchi et al, 2009Mizuguchi et al, , 2010Perra & Gattis, 2008). Here, the presence of target objects may clarify the purpose of the demonstration; therefore, children reproduce the goal component when the action ends at a salient target object, but they focus on the exact movement when the end state is not clearly marked.…”

Looking good versus doing good: Which factors take precedence when children learn about new tools?

“…Although there is not a great deal of research on imitation and overimitation among older children and adults, recent studies have suggested that adult imitation looks rather similar to imitation in children (Mizuguchi, Suzuki, Sugimura, & Deguchi, 2010), and in some cases adults will overimitate at rates even higher than those of children (Custance, Prato Previde, Spiezio, Rigamonti, & Poli, 2006;McGuigan et al, 2011;see also Nielsen & Tomaselli, 2010, where older children from multiple cultures were more likely to demonstrate overimitation than younger children). The current experiments are particularly concerned with whether or not participants of varying ages will be induced to imitate an action that is questionable, but that is presented as the appropriate way to achieve a goal.…”

Physical Imitation and Verbal Description of Modeled Movements Engage Different Encoding Processes

“…For example, a movement model could be sequenced as follows: picking up the glue stick with the right hand, turning it right, tapping on the right side of the right cup, and placing the glue stick on the right side. This is in keeping with the movement model of Mizuguchi, Suzuki, Sugimura, and Deguchi (2010). The five elements were systematically combined to configure 32 movement models.…”