R. ESSEILY, J. FAGARD
cognition depend on separate cognitive systems, as some au-
thors have claimed (Gelman & Spelke, 1981; Legerstee, 2006;
Spelke & Kinzler, 2006). Thus, when the social system faces a
load of ostensive cues, infants may need time to process the
social information at the cost of neglecting the cognitive as-
pects, in this case pulling apart the tube and the container using
bimanual coordination. The results fit with this alternative ex-
planation, given that infants in the ostensive group needed more
time to succeed at performing the task than infants in the non-
ostensive group: this may reflect the time needed to process the
social information provided by the experimenter. Thus, it would
be interesting to test this hypothesis by varying the social and
the cognitive loads in a single experiment, to see whether a
trade-off could be observed between the two systems.
Finally, even though the rate of success after the first demon-
stration was higher in the non-ostensive group, it remains low,
since only 20% out of the 75% of infants who failed spontane-
ously reproduced the target action after demonstration. Two
reasons may explain this low success rate. First, some studies
have shown that 10-month-old infants have limited imitative
learning capacities, and it is not until 12 to 15 months of age
that infants begin to learn novel tasks by imitation (Elsner,
Hauf, & Aschersleben, 2007; Esseily, Nadel, & Fagard, 2010;
Fagard & Lockman, 1998). Second, even though demonstration
via video has been tested in previous studies (Esseily & Fagard,
2012), others have shown a video deficit effect (Barr, Dowden,
& Hayne, 1996; Barr & Hayne, 1999; Barr, Muentener, Garcia,
Fujimoto, & Chavez, 2007; Zack, Barr, Gerhardstein, Dicker-
son, & Meltzoff, 2009). This effect may have contributed to the
low success rate.
In conclusion, this is the first eye tracking study to show that
ostensive cues can serve as a pointer directing infants’ attention
to important elements of a demonstration. However, when os-
tensive cues are provided, infants may be “distracted” by the
social information and ignore the cognitive task. This might be
particularly true at young ages when infants’ social and cogni-
tive capacities are limited. Thus, it would be interesting to pur-
sue this study with older infants to see whether resolving the
task becomes easier with improvement in the capacity to proc-
ess social and cognitive stimuli at the same time.
REFERENCES
Barr, R., Dowden, A., & Hayne, H. (1996). Developmental changes in
deferred imitation by 6- to 24-month-old infants. Infant Behavior and
Development, 19, 159-170. doi:10.1016/S0163-6383(96)90015-6
Barr, R., & Hayne, H. (1999). Developmental changes in imitation
from television during infancy. Child Developmen t, 70, 1067-1081.
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00079
Barr, R., Muentener, P., Garcia, A., Fujimoto, M., & Chavez, V. (2007).
The effect of repetition on imitation from television during infancy.
Developmental Psychobiology, 49, 196-207.
doi:10.1002/dev.20208
Brugger, A., Lariviere, L. A., Mumme, D. L., & Bushnell, E. W. (2007).
Doing the right thing: Infants’ selection of actions to imitate from
observed event sequences. Child Development, 78, 806-824.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01034.x
Carpenter, M., Nagell, K., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Social cognition,
joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months
of age. Monographs for the Society of Research in Child Develop-
ment, 63, 1-143. doi:10.2307/1166214
Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2005). 12- and 18-month-olds
copy actions in terms of goals. Developmental Science, 8, F13-20.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00385.x
Claxton, L. J., & Ponto, K. C. (2013). Understanding the properties of
interactive televised characters. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 34, 57-62. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2012.11.007
Cohen, A. S. (1977). Components of asymmetrical visual encoding of
geometrically transformed scripts. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44,
755-765. doi:10.2466/pms.1977.44.3.755
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cogni-
tive Sciences, 13, 148-153. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.005
Elsner, B., Hauf, P., & Aschersleben, G. (2007). Imitating step by step:
A detailed analysis of 9- to 15-month-olds’ reproduction of a three-
step action sequence. Infant Behavior and Development, 30, 325-
335. doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2006.10.001
Esseily, R., & Fagard, J. (2012). Influence du statut du modèle sur les
capacités d’apprentissage par observation de nouvelles habiletés ma-
nuelles: Modèle pair versus modèle adulte. Enfance, 64, 85-96.
Esseily, R., Nadel, J., & Fagard, J. (2010). Object retrieval through ob-
servational learning in 8- to 18-month-old infants. Infant Behavior
and Development, 33, 695-699.
doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2010.07.017
Esseily, R., Rat-Fischer, L., O’Regan, K., & Fagard, J. (2013). Under-
standing the experimenter’s intention improves 16-month-olds’ ob-
servational learning of the use of a novel tool. Cognitive Develop-
ment, 28, 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2012.10.001
Fagard, J. (1998). Changes in grasping skills and the emergence of
bimanual coordination during the first year of life. In K. J. Connolly
(Ed.), The psychobiology of the hand (Vol. Clinics in Developmental
Medicine, pp. 123-143). London: Mac Keith Press.
Fagard, J., & Lockman, J. J. (2009). Change in imitation for object ma-
nipulation between 10 and 12 months of age. Developmental Psy-
chobiology, 52, 90-99.
Frank, M. C., Vul, E., & Johnson, S. P. (2009). Development of infants’
attention to faces during the first year. Cognition, 110, 160-170.
doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.010
Feinman, S., & Lewis, M. (1983). Social referencing at ten-months: A
second-order effect on infants’ responses to strangers. Child Devel-
opment, 54.
Gelman, R., & Spelke, E. (1981). The development of thoughts about
animate and inanimate objects: Implications for research on social
cognition. In J. L. Flavell, & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive devel-
opment (pp. 43-66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Kiràly, I. (2002). Rational imitation in
preverbal infants. Nature, 415, 755. doi:10.1038/415755a
Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2006). Sylvia's recipe: The role of imitation
and pedagogy in the transmission of cultural knowledge. Oxford:
Berg Publishers.
Henrichs, I., Elsner, C., Elsner, B., & Gredebäck, G. (2012). Goal Sali-
ence affects infants’ goal-directed gaze shift. Frontiers in Psychology,
3, 1-7. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00391
Legerstee, M. (1992). A review on the animate-inanimate distinction in
infancy: Implications for models of social and cognitive knowing. In-
fant and Child Developm e n t, 1, 59-67.
Nielsen, M. (2006). Copying actions and copying outcomes: Social
learning through the second year. Developmental Psychology, 42, 555-
565. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.3.555
Nielsen, M., Simcock, G., & Jenkins, L. (2008). The effect of social
engagement on 24-month-olds’ imitation from live and televised mo-
dels. Developmental Sci ence, 11, 722-731.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00722.x
Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2008) Gaze following in human infants de-
pends on communicative signals. Current Biology, 18, 668-671.
doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.03.059
Senju, A., Csibra, G., & Johnson, M. H. (2008) Understanding the re-
ferential nature of looking: Infants’ preference for object-directed
gaze. Cognition, 1 0 8, 303-319. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.02.009
Southgate, V., Chevallier, C., & Csibra, G. (2009). Sensitivity to com-
municative relevance tells young children what to imitate. Develop-
mental Science, 12, 1013-1019.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00861.x
Spelke, E., & Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental
Science, 10, 89-96. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00569.x
Topàl, J., Gergely, G., Miklosi, A., Erdőhegyi, Á., & Csibra, G. (2008).
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 23