↓ Skip to main content

Neonatal Imitation: Theory, Experimental Design, and Significance for the Field of Social Cognition

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Neonatal Imitation: Theory, Experimental Design, and Significance for the Field of Social Cognition
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01323
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefano Vincini, Yuna Jhang, Eugene H. Buder, Shaun Gallagher

Abstract

Neonatal imitation has rich implications for neuroscience, developmental psychology, and social cognition, but there is little consensus about this phenomenon. The primary empirical question, whether or not neonatal imitation exists, is not settled. Is it possible to give a balanced evaluation of the theories and methodologies at stake so as to facilitate real progress with respect to the primary empirical question? In this paper, we address this question. We present the operational definition of differential imitation and discuss why it is important to keep it in mind. The operational definition indicates that neonatal imitation may not look like prototypical imitation and sets non-obvious requirements on what can count as evidence for imitation. We also examine the principal explanations for the extant findings and argue that two theories, the arousal hypothesis and the Association by Similarity Theory, which interprets neonatal imitation as differential induction of spontaneous behavior through similarity, offer better explanations than the others. With respect to methodology, we investigate what experimental design can best provide evidence for imitation, focusing on how differential induction may be maximized and detected. Finally, we discuss the significance of neonatal imitation for the field of social cognition. Specifically, we propose links with theories of social interaction and direct social perception. Overall, our goals are to help clarify the complex theoretical issues at stake and suggest fruitful guidelines for empirical research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Student > Master 7 11%
Professor 7 11%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 17 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 39%
Neuroscience 5 8%
Philosophy 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 18 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,477,381
of 23,509,253 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,804
of 31,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,051
of 318,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#282
of 581 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,334 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 581 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.