Debates about neonatal imitation remain more open than Keven & Akins (K&A) imply. K&A do not recognize the primacy of the question concerning differential imitation and the links between experimental designs and more or less plausible theoretical assumptions. Moreover, they do not acknowledge previous theorizing on spontaneous behavior, the explanatory power of entrainment, and subtle connections with social cognition.

Keven & Akins (K&A) present a compelling alternative to the case for neonatal orofacial imitation, offered by Meltzoff and Moore. However, they provide little concerning what lessons their proposal has to offer developmental psychology more generally. I suggest three candidates and elaborate on how they raise outstanding methodological and philosophical questions for the approach taken in the target article.

In our target article, we argued that the positive results of neonatal imitation are likely to be by-products of normal aerodigestive development. Our hypothesis elicited various responses on the role of social interaction in infancy, the methodological issues about imitation experiments, and the relation between the aerodigestive theory and the development of speech. Here we respond to the commentaries.