Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:45:02.152Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - A Bayesian model of imitation in infants and robots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2009

Rajesh P. N. Rao
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, USA
Aaron P. Shon
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, USA
Andrew N. Meltzoff
Affiliation:
Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences, Seattle, University of Washington, USA
Chrystopher L. Nehaniv
Affiliation:
University of Hertfordshire
Kerstin Dautenhahn
Affiliation:
University of Hertfordshire
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Humans are often characterized as the most behaviourally flexible of all animals. Evolution has stumbled upon an unlikely but very effective trick for achieving this state. Relative to most other animals, we are born ‘immature’ and helpless. Our extended period of infantile immaturity, however, confers us with benefits. It allows us to learn and adapt to the specific physical and cultural environment into which we are born. Instead of relying on fixed reflexes adapted for specific environments, our learning capacities allow us to adapt to a wide range of ecological niches, from Alaska to Africa, modifying our shelter, skills, dress and customs accordingly. A crucial component of evolution's design for human beings is imitative learning, the ability to learn behaviours by observing the actions of others.

Human adults effortlessly learn new behaviours from watching others. Parents provide their young with an apprenticeship in how to behave as a member of the culture long before verbal instruction is possible. In Western culture, toddlers hold telephones to their ears and babble into thin air. There is no innate proclivity to treat hunks of plastic in this manner, nor is it due to trial-and-error learning. Imitation is chiefly responsible.

Over the past decade, imitative learning has received considerable attention from cognitive scientists, evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists and robotics researchers. Discoveries in developmental psychology have altered theories about the origins of imitation and its place in human nature.

Type
Chapter
Information
Imitation and Social Learning in Robots, Humans and Animals
Behavioural, Social and Communicative Dimensions
, pp. 217 - 248
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alissandrakis, A., Nehaniv, C. L. and Dautenhahn, K. (2002). Do as I do: correspondences across different robotic embodiments. In Polani, D., Kim, J., and Martinetz, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th German Workshop on Artificial Life, 143–52.Google Scholar
Alissandrakis, A., Nehaniv, C. L. and Dautenhahn, K. (2002a). Imitation with ALICE: learning to imitate corresponding actions across dissimilar embodiments, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, 32(4), 482–96.CrossRef
Berthouze, L. and Kuniyoshi, Y. (1998). Emergence and categorization of coordinated visual behaviour through embodied interaction. Machine Learning, 31, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billard, A. and Dautenhahn, K. (1999). Experiments in learning by imitation – grounding and use of communication in robotic agents. Adaptive Behaviour, 7, 415–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, A. and Yuille, A. (eds.) (1992). Active Vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Breazeal, C. and Scassellati, B. (2002). Challenges in building robots that imitate people. In Dautenhahn, K. and Nehaniv, C. L. (eds.), Imitation in Animals and Artifacts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 363–90.Google Scholar
Brooks, R. and Meltzoff, A. N. (2002). The importance of eyes: how infants interpret adult looking behavior. Developmental Psychology, 38, 958–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooks, R. and Meltzoff, A. N. (2005). The development of gaze following and its relation to language. Developmental Science, 8, 535–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, A. E. and Ho, Y. C. (1975). Applied Optimal Control. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Buccino, G., Binkofski, F., Fink, G. R., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., Seitz, R. J., Zilles, K., Rizzolatti, G. and Freund, H.-J. (2001). Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: an fMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 400–4.Google Scholar
Dautenhahn, K. and Nehaniv, C. L. (2002). Imitation in Animals and Artifacts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Decety, J. (2002). Is there such a thing as functional equivalence between imagined, observed, and executed action? In Meltzoff, A. N. and Prinz, W. (eds.), The Imitative Mind: Development, Evolution, and Brain Bases. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press, 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demiris, J. and Hayes, G. (2002). Imitation as a dualroute process featuring predictive and learning components: A biologically plausible computational model. In K. Dautenhahn and C. Nehaniv (eds.), Imitation in animals and artifacts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 327–61.Google Scholar
Demiris, Y. and Meltzoff, A. N. (in press). The robot in the crib: A developmental analysis of imitation skills in infants and robots. Infant and Child Development.Google Scholar
Demiris, J., Rougeaux, S., Hayes, G. M., Berthouze, L. and Kuniyoshi, Y. (1997). Deferred imitation of human head movements by an active stereo vision head. Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication (Sept 29–Oct 1, Sendai, Japan), 88–93.Google Scholar
Fox, D., Thrun, S., Dellaert, F. and Burgard, W. (2001). Particle filters for mobile robot localization. In Doucet, A., Freitas, N. and Gordon, N. (eds.), Sequential Monte Carlo Methods in Practice. New York: Springer Verlag, 401–28.CrossRef
Glymour, C. (2001). The Mind's Arrows: Bayes Nets and Graphical Causal Models in Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., Kushnir, T. and Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grimes, D. B., Chalodhorn, R. and Rao, R. P. N. (2006). Dynamic imitation in a humanoid robot through nonparametric probabilistic inference. Proceedings of the 2006 Robotics Science and Systems Conference (Aug. 16–19, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA).Google Scholar
Gross, C. G. (1992). Representation of visual stimuli in inferior temporal cortex. In Bruce, V., Cowey, A. and Ellis, A. W. (eds.), Processing the Facial Image. New York: Oxford University Press, 3–10.Google Scholar
Hanna, E. and Meltzoff, A. N. (1993). Peer imitation by toddlers in laboratory, home, and day-care contexts: implications for social learning and memory. Developmental Psychology, 29, 701–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, G. and Demiris, J. (1994). A robot controller using learning by imitation. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Intelligent Robotic Systems, Grenoble, France, 198–204.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M., Grimes, D. B., Shon, A. P. and Rao, R. P. N.(2006). A probabilistic model of gaze imitation and shared attention. Neural Networks, 19, 299–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, P. L., Meltzoff, A. N. and Decety, J. (2006). Neural circuits involved in imitation and perspective-taking. NeuroImage, 31, 429–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, F. V. (2001). Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jojic, N. and Frey, B. (2001). Learning flexible sprites in video layers. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).
Jordan, M. I. and Rumelhart, D. E. (1992). Forward models: supervised learning with a distal teacher. Cognitive Science, 16, 307–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knill, D. C. and Richards, W. (eds.) (1996). Perception as Bayesian Inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. and Meltzoff, A. N. (1996). Infant vocalizations in response to speech: vocal imitation and developmental change. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 2425–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mataric, M. J. and Pomplun, M. (1998). Fixation behaviour in observation and imitation of human movement. Cognitive Brain Research, 7, 191–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meltzoff, A. N. (1988a). Imitation of televised models by infants. Child Development, 59, 1221–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. (1988b). Infant imitation after a 1-week delay: long-term memory for novel acts and multiple stimuli. Developmental Psychology, 24, 470–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 838–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meltzoff, A. N. (1996). The human infant as imitative generalist: a 20-year progress report on infant imitation with implications for comparative psychology. In Heyes, C. M. and Galef, B. G. (eds.), Social Learning in Animals: The Roots of Culture. New York: Academic Press, 347–70.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. (1999). Origins of theory of mind, cognition, and communication. Journal of Communication Disorders, 32, 251–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. (2005). Imitation and other minds: the ‘Like Me’ hypothesis. In Hurley, S. and Chater, N. (eds.), Perspectives on Imitation: From Cognitive Neuroscience to Social Science: Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 55–77.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. (2006). The ‘like me’ framework for recognizing and becoming an intentional agent. Acta Psychologica, doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.09.005.CrossRef
Meltzoff, A. N. (2007). ‘Like me’: a foundation for social cognition. Developmental Science, 10, 126–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meltzoff, A. N. and Decety, J. (2003). What imitation tells us about social cognition: a rapproachment between developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 358, 491–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. and Moore, M. K. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, 198, 75–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meltzoff, A. N. and Moore, M. K. (1983). Newborn infants imitate adult facial gestures. Child Development, 54, 702–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meltzoff, A. N. and Moore, M. K. (1989). Imitation in newborn infants: exploring the range of gestures imitated and the underlying mechanisms. Developmental Psychology, 25, 954–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meltzoff, A. N. and Moore, M. K. (1994). Imitation, memory, and the representation of persons. Infant Behaviour and Development, 17, 83–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meltzoff, A. N. and Moore, M. K. (1997). Explaining facial imitation: a theoretical model. Early Development and Parenting, 6, 179–92.3.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nehaniv, C. L. and Dautenhahn, K. (1998). Mapping between dissimilar bodies: affordances and the algebraic foundations of imitation. In Demiris, J. and Birk, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the European Workshop on Learning Robots.Google Scholar
Nehaniv, C. L. and Dautenhahn, K. (2001). Like me? – measures of correspondence and imitation. Cybernetics and Systems, 32(1–2), 11–51.Google Scholar
Nehaniv, C. L. and Dautenhahn, K. (2002). The correspondence problem. In Dautenhahn, K. and Nehaniv, C. L. (eds.), Imitation in Animals and Artifacts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 41–61.Google Scholar
Patrick, J., Campbell, K., Carmichael, L., Natale, R. and Richardson, B. (1982). Patterns of gross fetal body movement over 24-hour observation intervals during the last 10 weeks of pregnancy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 142, 363–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1954). The Construction of Reality in the Child. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prinz, W. (2002). Experimental approaches to imitation. In Meltzoff, A. N. and Prinz, W. (eds.), The Imitative Mind: Development, Evolution, and Brain Bases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 143–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabiner, L. R. and Juang, B. H. (1986). An introduction to hidden Markov models. IEEE ASSP Magazine, 3(1), 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, R. P. N. and Meltzoff, A. N. (2003). Imitation learning in infants and robots: towards probabilistic computational models. Proceedings of the 2003 Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour (AISB) Convention: Cognition in Machines and Animals, UK.Google Scholar
Rao, R. P. N., Olshausen, B. A. and Lewicki, M. S. (eds.) (2002). Probabilistic Models of the Brain: Perception and Neural Function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L. and Gallese, V. (2002). From mirror neurons to imitation, facts, and speculations. In Meltzoff, A. N. and Prinz, W. (eds.), The Imitative Mind: Development, Evolution, and Brain Bases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 247–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robotics and Autonomous Systems (2004). Special Issue: Robot Learning from Demonstration, 47(2–3).
Schaal, S. (1999). Is imitation learning the route to humanoid robots?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 233–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behaviour. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. and Call, J. (1997). Primate Cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verma, D. and Rao, R. P. N. (2006). Goal-based imitation as a probabilistic inference over graphical models. In Weiss, Y., Schölkopf, B. and Platt, J. (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 18. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1393–400.Google Scholar
Visalberghi, E. and Fragaszy, D. (2002). ‘Do monkeys ape?’ Ten years after. In Dautenhahn, K. and Nehaniv, C. L. (eds.), Imitation in Animals and Artifacts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 471–99.Google Scholar
Whiten, A. (2002). The imitator's representation of the imitated: ape and child. In Meltzoff, A. N. and Prinz, W. (eds.), The Imitative Mind: Development, Evolution, and Brain Bases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 98–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolpert, D. M., Ghahramani, Z. and Jordan, M. I. (1995). An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science, 269, 1880–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolpert, D. M. and Kawato, M. (1998). Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control, Neural Networks 11(7–8), 1317–29.CrossRef

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×