↓ Skip to main content

Thirteen- to Sixteen-Months Old Infants Are Able to Imitate a Novel Act from Memory in Both Unfamiliar and Familiar Settings But Do Not Show Evidence of Rational Inferential Processes

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Thirteen- to Sixteen-Months Old Infants Are Able to Imitate a Novel Act from Memory in Both Unfamiliar and Familiar Settings But Do Not Show Evidence of Rational Inferential Processes
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02186
Pubmed ID
URN
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-143899
Authors

Mikael Heimann, Angelica Edorsson, Annette Sundqvist, Felix-Sebastian Koch

Abstract

Gergely et al. (2002) reported that children imitated a novel action - illuminating a light-box by using the forehead - after a delay significantly more often if the hands of the experimenter had been visible in comparison with if they had been covered. In an attempt to explore these findings we conducted two studies with a total N of 63 children. Both studies investigated deferred imitation of the action in two conditions, with the hands of the experimenter visible or covered, but the settings differed. Study 1 (n = 30; mean age = 16.6 months) was carried out in an unfamiliar environment (a laboratory setting) while Study 2 (n = 33; mean age = 13.3 months) was conducted in familiar surroundings (at home or at day care). The results showed that 50% of the children in Study 1 and 42.4% in Study 2 evidenced deferred imitation as compared to only 4.9% (n = 2) in the baseline condition. However, in none of the studies did the children use inferential processes when imitating, we detected no significant differences between the two conditions, hands visible or hands covered. The findings add to the validity of the head touch procedure as a measure of declarative-like memory processes in the pre-verbal child. At the same time the findings question the robustness of the concept 'rational imitation,' it seems not as easy as expected to elicit a response based on rational inferential processes in this age group.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 22%
Student > Master 2 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Linguistics 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 33%
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 15 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,808,707
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,706
of 30,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,364
of 439,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#218
of 530 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,248 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 439,286 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 530 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 57% of its contemporaries.