title: A claw is like my hand: comparison supports goal analysis in infants.
abstract: Understanding the intentional relations in others' actions is critical to human social life. Origins of this knowledge exist in the first year and are a function of both acting as an intentional agent and observing movement cues in actions. We explore a new mechanism we believe plays an important role in infants' understanding of new actions: comparison. We examine how the opportunity to compare a familiar action with a novel, tool use action helps 7- and 10-month-old infants extract and imitate the goal of a tool use action. Infants given the chance to compare their own reach for a toy with an experimenter's reach using a claw later imitated the goal of an experimenter's tool use action. Infants who engaged with the claw, were familiarized with the claw's causal properties, or learned the associations between claw and toys (but did not align their reaches with the claw's) did not imitate. Further, active participation in the familiar action to be compared was more beneficial than observing a familiar and novel action aligned for 10-month-olds. Infants' ability to extract the goal-relation of a novel action through comparison with a familiar action could have a broad impact on the development of action knowledge and social learning more generally.
authors.affiliation: Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands. s.gerson@psych.ru.nl
authors.forename: Sarah A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Gerson
authors.forename: Amanda L
authors.initials: AL
authors.lastname: Woodward
mesh_terms: D001288:Attention; D002657:Child Development; D003071:Cognition; D032882:Comprehension; D003210:Concept Formation; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007100:Imitative Behavior; D007223:Infant; D033182:Intention; D008297:Male; D002666:Psychology, Child
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Jul;7(7):287-292
references.pmid: 12860186
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2005 Jan;41(1):265-80
references.pmid: 15656754
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 1995 Sep;31(5):838-850
references.pmid: 25147406
references.citation: Cognition. 2005 Feb;95(1):1-30
references.pmid: 15629472
references.citation: Child Dev. 2009 Jul-Aug;80(4):968-85
references.pmid: 19630888
references.citation: Psychol Learn Motiv. 2009;51:187-222
references.pmid: 24771952
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 1997 Sep;33(5):790-801
references.pmid: 9300212
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2007 Nov;10(6):826-35
references.pmid: 17973799
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2009 Sep;104(1):124-31
references.pmid: 18951555
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2002 Feb 1;6(2):85-93
references.pmid: 15866192
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2005 Jan;8(1):F13-20
references.pmid: 15647059
references.citation: Cognition. 1998 Jan;65(2-3):263-97
references.pmid: 9557385
references.citation: Cogn Dev. 2007 Jul;22(3):310-322
references.pmid: 18591991
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2011 May;47(3):886-97
references.pmid: 21142357
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2005 Jun;50(4):315-53
references.pmid: 15893523
references.citation: Cognition. 1998 Nov;69(1):1-34
references.pmid: 9871370
references.citation: Conscious Cogn. 2003 Dec;12(4):770-2; discussion 773-6
references.pmid: 14656516
references.citation: Cognition. 2005 May;96(1):B1-11
references.pmid: 15833301
references.citation: Infant Behav Dev. 2008 Jan;31(1):115-26
references.pmid: 17707913
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2002 Mar;131(1):5-15
references.pmid: 11900103
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2008 Sep;44(5):1249-56
references.pmid: 18793059
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2007 Mar;43(2):309-17
references.pmid: 17352541
references.citation: Infancy. 2009 Dec 1;14(6):667-679
references.pmid: 23794953
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2009 Jan;12(1):142-9
references.pmid: 19120422
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2008 Jul;11(4):487-94
references.pmid: 18576956
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2007 May;10(3):379-98
references.pmid: 17444978