- Neonatal
imitation in context: Sensorimotor development
in the perinatal period
- Keven N, Akins KA.
-
- More than 35 years ago, Meltzoff and Moore
(1977) published their famous article,
"Imitation of facial and manual gestures by
human neonates." Their central conclusion, that
neonates can imitate, was and continues to be
controversial. Here, we focus on an
often-neglected aspect of this debate, namely,
neonatal spontaneous behaviors themselves. We
present a case study of a paradigmatic orofacial
"gesture," namely tongue protrusion and
retraction (TP/R). Against the background of new
research on mammalian aerodigestive development,
we ask: How does the human aerodigestive system
develop, and what role does TP/R play in the
neonate's emerging system of aerodigestion? We
show that mammalian aerodigestion develops in
two phases: (1) from the onset of isolated
orofacial movements in utero to the postnatal
mastery of suckling at 4 months after birth; and
(2) thereafter, from preparation to the mastery
of mastication and deglutition of solid foods.
Like other orofacial stereotypies, TP/R emerges
in the first phase and vanishes prior to the
second. Based upon recent advances in
activity-driven early neural development, we
suggest a sequence of three developmental events
in which TP/R might participate: the acquisition
of tongue control, the integration of the
central pattern generator (CPG) for TP/R with
other aerodigestive CPGs, andthe formation of
connections within the cortical maps of S1 and
M1. If correct, orofacial stereotypies are
crucial to the maturation of aerodigestion in
the neonatal period but also unlikely to
co-occur with imitative behavior.
-
Philosopher's
disease and its antidote: Perspectives from
prenatal behavior and contagious yawning and
laughing
- Robert R. Provine
-
- Abstract: Accounts of behavior, including
imitation, often suffer from philosopher's
disease: the unnecessary, inappropriate,
theoretically driven explanation of behavior in
terms of cognition, rationality, and
consciousness. Embryos are perversely
unphilosophical and unpsychological, starting to
move before they receive sensory input.
Postnatal contagious yawning and laughing
indicate that pseudo-imitative behavior can
occur without conscious intent or other
higher-order cognitive process.
-
-
- When we seek to understand behavior &endash;
our own and that of others &endash; we suffer
from philosopher's disease: the unnecessary,
inappropriate, theoretically driven casting of
behavior in terms of higher-order cognitive
processes.
- In these accounts, we often commit the error
of intentionality, the over-estimate of our
voluntary, conscious control of behavior. The
antidote for philosopher's disease and its
associated theoretical biases is research based
on the natural priorities of organisms that is
derived from objective descriptions of behavior.
-
- I suggest that we are not very good
philosophers and can benefit from the
examination of nontraditional sources for
insight and guidance, especially prenatal
behavior and postnatal contagious behaviors such
as yawning and laughing (Provine 2012). The best
place to start the investigation of behavior is
at the beginning &endash; prenatal behavior.
Early embryos are profoundly unphilosophical and
unpsychological beings that start to move before
they receive sensory input. They spond before
they respond. Such motor precocity is an awkward
fact for developmental psychologists who seek
only environmentally driven causes of behavior
(sensation/perception, learning, motivation,
etc.) and neglect spontaneous movement (Provine
2012).
-
- The agenda of postnatal psychology fares
poorly when forced upon the prenatal domain.
Even after sensory input becomes available, it
has little impact on most ongoing behavior
during the prenatal period (Provine 1972). If
this is not challenge enough, the spinal cord,
not the brain, is the origin of the electrical
discharges that drive much embryonic behavior
(Provine & Rogers 1977). Both the functions
and causes of embryonic behavior are novel and
unique to the prenatal niche. Embryonic movement
is essential for the development of joints,
muscles, and the regulation of neuron numbers,
behavioral consequences neglected by most
developmental psychologists (Provine 2012).
-
- How many developmental psychologists know
that paralyzing embryos blocks the naturally
occurring death of motor neurons? Instinctive
yawning (Provine 2005), and laughing (2000;
2016; 2017) provide informative examples of
erroneous thinking about the causes of behavior.
Yawning is considered a pseudolinguistic gesture
of sleepiness or boredom, and laughing is a play
vocalization emitted in certain social settings,
but neither is under strong voluntary control.
We can neither convincingly yawn nor laugh on
command, and attempts to do so seem fake and
have long latencies (Provine 2012).
-
- However, lack of conscious control does not
curtail the composition of fictive narratives to
explain their occurrence. Contagion provides
another challenge to the myth of conscious
control that is especially relevant to the issue
of infant imitation of the sort reported by
Meltzoff and Moore (1977) (Provine 1989a; 2012).
When we yawn in response to observed yawns
(Provine 1986) or laugh in response to observed
laughs (Provine 1992), is it a conscious effort
to imitate another person? Both options are
unlikely, given the low level of voluntary
control of yawning and laughing (Provine 2012).
-
- I suggest, instead, that such contagion is
the involuntary consequence of activation of a
feature detector for yawns or laughs in the
observer's brain. The detector for laughter is
probably acoustic &endash; the sound of laughter
triggers laughter of the listener (Provine 1992;
2000). The trigger for yawning is more broadly
tuned &endash; almost any stimulus associated
with yawning will trigger yawns, including
looking at them (Provine 1986; 1989b), hearing
them, thinking about them (Provine 1986), or
even reading about them as you are now doing
(Provine 1986). If you desire a broader menu of
contagious and pseudo-imitative acts, examine
coughing, vocal crying, emotional tearing,
reddening of the eyes, nausea/vomiting, and
itching/scratching (Provine 2012).
|
