Beyond the Gong: Relations Between Elicited Imitation Performance at 20-40 Months of Age and Memory at 6 Years
Tracy DeBoer, Carol L. Cheatham, Emily Stark, & Patricia J. Bauer
Institute of Child Development
University of Minnesota
Results
Background
 At 20 months of age, children’s performance on 3-exposure was related to performance on 1-exposure (ps <.05)
Imitation of Individual Target Actions
Immediate Imitation
4
3
2
1
0
3-Exposure
Bolded correlations are illustrated in scatterplots below; + = p <. 10, * = p < .05.
Imitation of Pairs of Actions in the Correct Order
Baseline
Pairs of Actions
Baseline
1-Exposure
9-Step Ordered
Pairs Immediate
Immediate Imitation
CMS Score
3
2
1
0
3-Exposure
Number of Exposures Before Imitation
1-Exposure
Number of Exposures Before Imitation
1
Relations Between Imitation Performance at Wave 1 and Performance on Tasks at Wave 2:
3
4
5
8
9
.37*
9-Step Picture Sequencing and CMS Scores
CMS General Memory Score at 6 years
150
30
125
25
20
100
15
10
3
6
9
75
50
3
Immediate Recall of Ordered Pairs at 6 years
6
9
Delayed Recall of Ordered Pairs at 6 years
Discussion
3-Exposure Sequences
Individual Target
Pairs of Actions
Actions
.29+
.32+
.28+
CMS - General Memory
Visual Immediate Memory
Children’s
Memory
Scale
1-Exposure Sequences
Individual Target
Pairs of Actions
Actions
.38*
.38*
.43*
.49**
Verbal Immediate Memory
.34*
.32+
.38*
.37*
Attention/Concentration
.43*
.36*
.40*
.41*
.46**
.49**
.42*
.54**
.50**
.60**
.32+
Learning
Pair Cancellation
Visual Matching
9-Step Immediate Ordered Pairs
9-Step Delayed Ordered Pairs
Woodcock
Johnson III
9-Step
Picture Seq.
.37*
.34*
.41*
.35*
Elicited Imitation Performance and CMS Scores
100
75
CMS Attention/Concentration
Score at 6 years
125
30
20
10
50
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
0.5
4.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
 Bauer, P. J. (2002). Early memory development. In Goswami, U. (Ed). Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development. Blackwell handbooks of
30
25
20
15
10
0.5
Individual Actions Recalled at 20 months
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
Individual Actions Recalled at 20 months
Elicited Imitation Performance and CMS Scores
Elicited Imitation Performance and CMS Scores
Elicited Imitation Performance and CMS Scores
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
Individual Actions Recalled at 20 months
5
55
45
35
25
15
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Individual Actions Recalled at 20 months
4.5
 Results indicate that performance on the elicited imitation task during toddlerhood is related to
some aspects of memory performance at 6 years of age.
 Specifically, both measures of standardized memory performance and measures of speed of
processing correlated with imitation performance.
 4-step elicited imitation performance was also correlated with 9-step picture sequencing
imitation performance suggesting that these may be analogous measures of memory in older
children.
 Moreover, concurrent measures of 9-step picture sequencing were related to
performance on the Children’s Memory Scale.
 These findings add support to the argument that recall abilities are reliable and robust by 20
months of age (Bauer, 2002) and that elicited imitation is an appropriate task to index these
abilities in preverbal children.
References
Elicited Imitation Performance and CMS Scores
40
150
CMS Verbal Immediate
Memory Score at 6 years
CMS General Memory Score at
6 years
Elicited Imitation Performance and CMS Scores
.30+
WJ III Visual Matching at 6
years
7
.39*
Bolded correlations are illustrated in scatterplots below; + = p <. 10, * = p < .05, ** = p < .01
WJ III Pair Cancellation Score
at 6 years
2
6
.34*
Learning Score
Results
9-Step Picture Sequencing
Immediate Recall of
Ordered Pairs at 6 years
Immediate, 10-minute Deferred
Verbal Delay Score
 All scores of children’s performance on the Children’s Memory Scale and Woodcock Johnson were within the
normal range.
Individual Actions of 3-Exposure Sequences Recalled at 20
months
 9step picture sequencing task (Phill, 2001)
.35*
9-Step Picture Sequening and CMS Scores
Wave 2 @ 6 years: Follow-up Standardized Memory Assessment and Memory Battery
Visual Matching, Pair Cancellation, Rapid Picture Naming
Verbal Immediate Score
Visual Matching
Wave 1 @ 20 months: Immediate Imitation of 8 4-Step Sequences
 Speed of processing (Woodcock Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities III®; Woodcock et al., 2001)
.31+
Wave 2: Performance on 6-Year Tasks:
Task at 6 Years
Total Scaled Score
Visual Memory: Memory for Dot Locations, Recognition Memory for Faces
Verbal Memory: Story Recall, Memory for Word Pairs
Attention/Concentration: Numbers (digit span forward and backwards), Sequences (speed & accuracy of familiar sequences: e.g., alphabet)
Learning: Learning Dot Locations, Learning for Word Pairs
Visual Delay Score
Pair Cancellation
Procedure
 Standardized memory assessment (the Children’s Memory Scale®; Cohen, 1997)
.39*
Attention/Concentration Score
20-Month Elicited Imitation Performance
 4 sequences were demonstrated 3 times, 4 sequences were demonstrated 1 time (exposure sessions were
1 week apart)
 Each sequence consisted of
1) a baseline measure
2) demonstration (i.e., modeling) by the experimenter
3) immediate imitation
 Consistent with previous research, two measures were indicative of recall: 1) individual target actions and
2) pairs of target actions in the correct temporal order
9-Step Ordered
Pairs Delay
Visual Immediate Score
 Thirty-five children completed both waves of data collection (18 female, 17 male)
 1 male was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder between waves 1and 2. His data were not part of
the current report.
 Mean age at Wave 1 = 20 months (SD = 27 days)
 Mean age at Wave 2 = 6 years, 7 months (SD = 2 months, 3 weeks)
Performance on the Children’s Memory Scale was significantly correlated with our laboratory measure of
memory (i.e., 9-step picture sequencing). However, performance on the Woodcock Johnson III speed of
processing tasks were not related to performance on the 9-step picture sequencing task.
CMS Attention/Concentration
Score at 6 years
Participants
Relations Between Concurrent Tasks at 6 years:
Wave 1: Performance on 4-Step Sequences:
Target Actions
 Elicited/deferred imitation is a commonly used measure of preverbal infants’ explicit memory abilities.
 In this paradigm, infants observe a sequence of actions demonstrated by an experimenter and are
subsequently given the opportunity to reproduce the modeled actions either immediately (elicited imitation),
after a delay (deferred imitation), or both.
 This technique is accepted by many as a nonverbal analogue to explicit memory report (Bauer, 2002)
 Performance is at least partially dependent on regions of the medial temporal lobe (Carver & Bauer,
1999, 2001; McDonough et al., 1995).
 Additionally, this paradigm has been used to assess memory in infants at-risk for memory impairment (e.g.,
infants of diabetic mothers, DeBoer et al., in press, and infants born preterm, Cheatham, 2004).
However, to date, relations between performance on the elicited imitation paradigm and memory
performance later in life have not been tested.
 In this investigation we examined the long-term predictability of the elicited imitation paradigm from 20
months to 6 years of age.
Results
35
30
25
20
15
0
0.25 0.5 0.75
1
1.25 1.5 1.75
2
2.25 2.5 2.75 3
Pairs of Actions Recalled at 20 months (1-Exposure)
Note: The one data point illustrating performance of 1 individual target action on the immediate imitation task was not 2 SD below the mean.
Significant results remained the same even when this data point was removed.
developmental psychology. (pp. 127-146). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
 Carver, L. J., & Bauer, P. J. (1999). When the event is more than the sum of its parts: Nine-month-olds’ long term ordered recall. Memory, 7, 147174.
 Carver, L. J., & Bauer, P. J. (2001). The dawning of a past: The emergence of long-term explicit memory in infancy. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 130, 726-745.
 Cheatham, C.L. (2004). Recall deficits in infants born preterm: Sources of individual differences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Minnesota, Twin Cities.
 Cohen, M. J. (1997). Children’s Memory Scale. San Antonio, TX : Psychological Corp.
 DeBoer, T., Wewerka, S., Bauer, P. J., Georgieff, M. K., & Nelson, C. A. (in press). Declarative memory performance in infants of diabetic
mothers at 1 year of age. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology.
 McDonough, L., Mandler, J. M., McKee, R. D., & Squire, L. R. (1995). The deferred imtiation task as a nonverbal measure of declarative memory.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 92, 7580-7584.
 Phill, C. (2001). What’s in a picture? Enabling relations, event recall, and stimulus type. Unpublished manuscript. University of Minnesota.
 Woodcock R. W., McGrew, K. S., Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III®). Riverside Publishing.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Members of the Cognition in Transition Laboratory for their continued support of this project
and the families who donated their time for this research endeavor. This research was supported by a grant from the NICHD to
Patricia J. Bauer (HD28425), and Small grants from both the Institute of Child Development and Center for Neurobehavioral
Development at the University of Minnesota to Tracy DeBoer and Carol Cheatham.
Please send comments or questions to the first author at debo0047@umn.edu