Nielsen, M. & Blank, C. (2011). Imitation in young children: When who gets copied is more important than what gets copied. Developmental Psychology 47(4), 1050-1053.
In this brief report Nielsen and Blank (2011) observed how 36 children (19 boys and 17 girls) aged 4-5 years old imitated a task when independently performed by two adults, one who completed the task with “efficiency” and the other with extra “irrelevant” actions. The task was to open a small box, that had a metal latch, and take a toy out of it. In the trials the adults demonstrated the task each three times, in three different ways, two ways involved some irrelevant actions, and one way simply moved the metal latch and opened the box to reveal the toy. Prior to opening the box the adult demonstrator began with the directive “watch me”. The child sat in front of the demonstrator with their parent by their side. After the first demonstrator performed the task they left the room, and the second demonstrator stayed to perform their form of the task. At the end of the demonstration the adult announced “now it is your turn” (p. 1051) and handed the box to the child. Only one demonstrator was in the room to watch the child open the box and take out the toy.
In result the child imitated the actions that were modeled by the demonstrator that stayed in the room, even if the demonstrator was the one that performed the “irrelevant” acts to open the box. Some of the irrelevant acts included rotating the box, or tapping the box with an object. The authors use the term overimitation in relationship to the imitation of acts with no purposeful or function, modeled after an adults actions. They point out how children learn through imitation, and that young children or novices may learn behaviors that may not be relevant to completing a task.
While the stimuli in this research study was “a box” that could have been opened by swinging a small latch and lifting up the top, the children continued to complete a series of irrelevant acts when in the presence of the adult who performed these same acts. This may speak to the human desire for social approval and human connection. The authors note that imitation or copying is “likely to prove a hallmark of what it means to be human” (p. 1052).
The role of imitation seems to play a clear role in the development of human interactions, learning of language, and the passing along of traditions. This leads me to support the investigation of the neural mechanisms involved in imitation and the role that this may play among the social and communicative development of children with autism.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Saturday, October 22, 2011
An examination of the state of imitation research in children with autism: Issues of definition and methodology.
Sevlever, M. & Gillis, J. (2010). An examination of the state of imitation research in children with autism: Issues of definition and methodology. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 976-984doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2010.04.014.
Sevlever and Gillis (2010) have written a lovely review on imitation research. The authors highlight the “conflicting theoretical explanations of imitative difficulties” among individuals with autism (p. 976), and reported that the “extent of imitative difficulties in children with autism remains largely unknown” due to “inconsistent operational findings” (p. 977). The author comments on the work of Tomasello (1990) who noted differences using describing terms of imitation and mimicry, and comments that “autism research adheres to amore colloquial definition of imitation” (p. 977). The author suggested that more objective approaches toward evaluating imitation through a standardized methodology may offer generalization and greater impact across studies.
The author did mention that many variables such as the a host of sensory impairments may play a role in offering a generalized protocol as each child with autism is so different in nature. So questions remain in terms of how imitation is measured, and what stimuli is used. Why do children with autism consistently perform worse than neuro-typical children when it comes to imitation? Are imitation tasks boring or not of interest to children with autism? Do children with autism see no point in imitating others? Is there a disruption in the visual motor system that may inhibit functional imitation?
As a music therapist I find that children with autism are able to imitate musical sounds in various ways. While motor imitation in general may be impaired – the ability to imitate a motor act on a drum per se is completed within the first trial. If I simply moved my arms as if playing the drum, such imitation would not occur. The trick is finding a way to measure such imitative abilities – with a clear definition of terminology, methodology, and analysis procedure.
Sevlever and Gillis (2010) have written a lovely review on imitation research. The authors highlight the “conflicting theoretical explanations of imitative difficulties” among individuals with autism (p. 976), and reported that the “extent of imitative difficulties in children with autism remains largely unknown” due to “inconsistent operational findings” (p. 977). The author comments on the work of Tomasello (1990) who noted differences using describing terms of imitation and mimicry, and comments that “autism research adheres to amore colloquial definition of imitation” (p. 977). The author suggested that more objective approaches toward evaluating imitation through a standardized methodology may offer generalization and greater impact across studies.
The author did mention that many variables such as the a host of sensory impairments may play a role in offering a generalized protocol as each child with autism is so different in nature. So questions remain in terms of how imitation is measured, and what stimuli is used. Why do children with autism consistently perform worse than neuro-typical children when it comes to imitation? Are imitation tasks boring or not of interest to children with autism? Do children with autism see no point in imitating others? Is there a disruption in the visual motor system that may inhibit functional imitation?
As a music therapist I find that children with autism are able to imitate musical sounds in various ways. While motor imitation in general may be impaired – the ability to imitate a motor act on a drum per se is completed within the first trial. If I simply moved my arms as if playing the drum, such imitation would not occur. The trick is finding a way to measure such imitative abilities – with a clear definition of terminology, methodology, and analysis procedure.
Article Review: Slowing down the presentation of facial and body movements enhances imitation performance in children with severe autism.
Laine, F., Rauzy, S., Tardif, C., Gepner, B. (2010). Slowing down the presentation of facial and body movements enhances imitation performance in children with severe autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41, 983-996.
The authors of this article comment that documented observations from the past 40 years according to DeMeyere and colleagues (1972) have noted imitation difficulties of gestures and actions among individuals with autism. Laine and collegues cite the work of Nadel (2006) who suggested that impaired imitation might contribute to poor imitation and social skills among children with autism. The authors hypothesize that decreasing the speed of movements presented might increase performance of imitative acts.
The focus of the study was “on the physical aspect of imitation rather than on its meaning or familiarity” of the action performed (p. 984). The authors point out the role of perception as indicated by emerging data performed with functional imaging, which has suggested problems of on-line neurologic processing.
Participants in this study included 19 children with classic autism (4 girls and 15 boys, and excluded Asperger’s syndrome or PDD-NOS) aged 6.4-17.6, and two comparison groups that included 27 neuro-typical children (which were split in to additional groups based on assessment scores), and 17 children with Down syndrome. Assessment batteries allowed for the children with autism to be individual matched with the noted counterparts.
The children with autism were assessed for severity with the Childhood Autism Rating Scale scores (CARS), and additional batteries included a Verbal Mental Age Assessment (VMA), a non-verbal Mental Age Assessment (NVMA), The Progressive Matrix Coloured-Test (PMC-T), and the Kaufman-Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). Ultimately the participatns were split into the following groups, children with autism (n = 19), neuro-typical children VMA scores (n = 19), neuro-typical children NVMA scores (n = 18), and children with Down syndrome (n = 17).
The participants were tested individual in a private room where they sat in front of a computer screen with a model displaying 20 different facial and body gestures with no-meaning. The gestures were recorded and quantized to play at two different slower speeds, “slow” and “very slow” (p. 988). An experimenter scored the imitations of the gestures based on completeness of imitation – from beginning to end of a sequence. The score was based on a 0-2 point system for each gesture, with a total score of 0-120.
The results compared the three groups of autism according to the CARS scores and revealed that participants with mild autism performed better than participants with both moderate and severe forms of autism. The main findings indicated that children with autism performed almost just as well as those with Down syndrome, but significantly worse than neuro-typical children. The children with autism did not show a difference in imitation performance when the gestures were slowed, yet the children with severe forms of autism performed slightly better when the stimuli was slowed.
An interesting thought that the researchers present in the discussion is the question as to whether the children would have performed differently if the stimuli did not involve a person – as the perceptual experience may have been disrupted by its social underpinnings. In conclusion the authors note that slowing down visual information may assist some children and adolescents with imitation abilities.
In my personal experience as a music therapist – children with autism who are presented with auditory stimuli are able to imitate readily, however since this study focuses on visual stimuli one may consider the role of visual-motor versus auditory-motor relationships in the brain of the individual with autism.
In my conclusion I believe that article has a strong literature review; it is concise, well written, and informs the reader of the brief history of impairment imitation among individuals with autism. The methodology in my opinion in quite complex, there were many comparison groups, which leads me to many questions, and yielded data for possible additional investigations. I am mainly interested in seeing a comparison of the three sub-groups of children with autism and how they perform with the imitation of acts produced at two different speeds only. Additionally, I would also like a greater description of the testing room and the model on the computer. For example were there lights in the room… did the video that represented the model have sound…did the children have a history with the model? I would also be curious to know what gestures the children responded best to, facial or body? The appendix offers a list of the actions that were performed, and the sources of the gestures with references included.
All in all, I thought this was a thorough investigation – and I look forward to seeing more work on this topic, particularly in comparison to visual and auditory imitation among this population.
The authors of this article comment that documented observations from the past 40 years according to DeMeyere and colleagues (1972) have noted imitation difficulties of gestures and actions among individuals with autism. Laine and collegues cite the work of Nadel (2006) who suggested that impaired imitation might contribute to poor imitation and social skills among children with autism. The authors hypothesize that decreasing the speed of movements presented might increase performance of imitative acts.
The focus of the study was “on the physical aspect of imitation rather than on its meaning or familiarity” of the action performed (p. 984). The authors point out the role of perception as indicated by emerging data performed with functional imaging, which has suggested problems of on-line neurologic processing.
Participants in this study included 19 children with classic autism (4 girls and 15 boys, and excluded Asperger’s syndrome or PDD-NOS) aged 6.4-17.6, and two comparison groups that included 27 neuro-typical children (which were split in to additional groups based on assessment scores), and 17 children with Down syndrome. Assessment batteries allowed for the children with autism to be individual matched with the noted counterparts.
The children with autism were assessed for severity with the Childhood Autism Rating Scale scores (CARS), and additional batteries included a Verbal Mental Age Assessment (VMA), a non-verbal Mental Age Assessment (NVMA), The Progressive Matrix Coloured-Test (PMC-T), and the Kaufman-Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). Ultimately the participatns were split into the following groups, children with autism (n = 19), neuro-typical children VMA scores (n = 19), neuro-typical children NVMA scores (n = 18), and children with Down syndrome (n = 17).
The participants were tested individual in a private room where they sat in front of a computer screen with a model displaying 20 different facial and body gestures with no-meaning. The gestures were recorded and quantized to play at two different slower speeds, “slow” and “very slow” (p. 988). An experimenter scored the imitations of the gestures based on completeness of imitation – from beginning to end of a sequence. The score was based on a 0-2 point system for each gesture, with a total score of 0-120.
The results compared the three groups of autism according to the CARS scores and revealed that participants with mild autism performed better than participants with both moderate and severe forms of autism. The main findings indicated that children with autism performed almost just as well as those with Down syndrome, but significantly worse than neuro-typical children. The children with autism did not show a difference in imitation performance when the gestures were slowed, yet the children with severe forms of autism performed slightly better when the stimuli was slowed.
An interesting thought that the researchers present in the discussion is the question as to whether the children would have performed differently if the stimuli did not involve a person – as the perceptual experience may have been disrupted by its social underpinnings. In conclusion the authors note that slowing down visual information may assist some children and adolescents with imitation abilities.
In my personal experience as a music therapist – children with autism who are presented with auditory stimuli are able to imitate readily, however since this study focuses on visual stimuli one may consider the role of visual-motor versus auditory-motor relationships in the brain of the individual with autism.
In my conclusion I believe that article has a strong literature review; it is concise, well written, and informs the reader of the brief history of impairment imitation among individuals with autism. The methodology in my opinion in quite complex, there were many comparison groups, which leads me to many questions, and yielded data for possible additional investigations. I am mainly interested in seeing a comparison of the three sub-groups of children with autism and how they perform with the imitation of acts produced at two different speeds only. Additionally, I would also like a greater description of the testing room and the model on the computer. For example were there lights in the room… did the video that represented the model have sound…did the children have a history with the model? I would also be curious to know what gestures the children responded best to, facial or body? The appendix offers a list of the actions that were performed, and the sources of the gestures with references included.
All in all, I thought this was a thorough investigation – and I look forward to seeing more work on this topic, particularly in comparison to visual and auditory imitation among this population.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)