Why the confusion around neonatal imitation? A review

Abstract

Considerable research efforts have been expended investigating imitation in newborns over the past 35 years. This is because neonatal imitation is extremely controversial, with debates focusing on whether the phenomenon even exists, what the mechanism is that drives it, and the function that it serves. Three prominent theories that the field currently offers are: (1) neonatal imitation is a genuine act of social communication mediated through an abstract representational system; (2) the phenomenon is actually an involuntary, inborn reflex limited to tongue protrusion; and (3) imitation in newborns is a product of arousal. These views continue to be maintained without much promise of resolution, and it is the aim of this review to investigate why. Here, we review the history of neonatal imitation research and these debates. We will critically examine the empirical basis for neonatal imitation, including studies from the past decade that have not been reviewed to date. We consider what may contribute to the confusion of the interpretation of neonatal imitation, such as newborn state regulation, testing context, coding and scoring. We conclude with comments pointing to new ways of studying and interpreting the controversial phenomenon of neonatal imitation that have not yet been proposed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 39 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.