Cover not available
Article published In:
Interaction Studies
Vol. 15:1 (2014) ► pp.55–98

Tutoring in adult-child interaction

On the loop of the tutor’s action modification and the recipient’s gaze

Research of tutoring in parent-infant interaction has shown that tutors – when presenting some action – modify both their verbal and manual performance for the learner (‘motherese’, ‘motionese’). Investigating the sources and effects of the tutors’ action modifications, we suggest an interactional account of ‘motionese’. Using video-data from a semi-experimental study in which parents taught their 8- to 11-month old infants how to nest a set of differently sized cups, we found that the tutors’ action modifications (in particular: high arches) functioned as an orienting device to guide the infant’s visual attention (gaze). Action modification and the recipient’s gaze can be seen to have a reciprocal sequential relationship and to constitute a constant loop of mutual adjustments. Implications are discussed for developmental research and for robotic ‘Social Learning’. We argue that a robot system could use on-line feedback strategies (e.g. gaze) to pro-actively shape a tutor’s action presentation as it emerges.

Keywords: adult-child-interaction, social learning, feedback, conversation analysis, gaze, quantification, interactional coordination, tutoring, motionese
Published online: 10 June 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.15.1.03pit
References
Alissandrakis, A., Syrdal, D.S., & Miyake, Y. (
2011). Helping robots imitate: Acknowledgement of, and adaptation to, the robot’s feedback to a human task demonstration. In K. Dautenhahn, & J. Saunders (Eds.), New frontiers in human-robot interaction (pp. 9–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brand, R.J., & Shallcross, W.L. (
2008). Infants prefer motionese to adult-directed action. Developmental Science, 11(6), 853–861. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brand, R.J., Baldwin, D.A., & Ashburn, L.A. (
2002). Evidence for ‘motionese’: Modifications in mother’s infant-directed actions. Developmental Science, 5(1), 72–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brand, R.J., Shallcross, W.L., Sabatos, M.G., & Massie, K.P. (
2007). Fine-Grained analysis of motionese: Eye gaze, object exchanges, and action units in infant-versus adult-directed action. Infancy, 11(2), 203–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breazeal, C., & Scassellati, B. (
2002). Challenges in building robots that imitate people. InK. Dautenhahn, & C.L. Nehaniv(Eds.), Imitation in animals and artifacts (pp. 363–389). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Breazeal, C. (
2002): Designing sociable robots. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bruner, J.S. (
1985). The role of interaction formats in language acquisition. InJ.P. Forgas(Ed.), Language and social situations (pp. 31–46). New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Button, G. (
1990). Going up a blind alley. Conflating conversation analysis and computational modelling. InP. Luff, N. Gilbert, & D.M. Frohlich(Eds.), Computers and conversation (pp. 67–90). San Diego: Academic Press.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cangelosi, A., Metta, G., Sagerer, G., Nolfi, S., Nehaniv, C., Fischer, K., Tani, J, Belpame, T., Sandini, G., Nori, F., Fadiga, L., Wrede, B., Rohlfing, K., Tuci, E., Dautenhahn, K., Saunders, J., & Zeschel, A. (
2010). Integration of action and language knowledge: A roadmap for developmental robotics. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 2(3), 167–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dausendschön-Gay, U. (
2003). Producing and learning to produce utterances in social interaction. Eurosla Yearbook, 31, 207–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De León, L. (
2008). The emergent participant: Interactive patterns in the socialization of Tzotzil (Mayan) infants. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 81, 131–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Estigarribia, B., & Clark, E.V. (
2007). Getting and maintaining attention in talk to young children. Journal of Child Language, 34(4), 799–814. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falck-Ytter, T., Gredebäck, G., & von Hofsten, C. (
2006). Infants predict other people’s action goals. Nature Neuroscience, 9(7), 878–879. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A., & Mazzie, C. (
1991). Prosody and focus in speech to infants and adults. Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 209–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fogel, A. (
1993). Developing through relationships: Origins of communication, self, and culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (
2005). The social construction of the cultural mind: Imitative learning as a mechanism of human pedagogy. Interaction Studies, 6(3), 463–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gogate, L.J., Bahrick, L.E., & Watson, J.D. (
2000). A study of multimodal motherese: The role of temporal synchrony between verbal labels and gestures. Child Development, 71(4), 878–894. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (
1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 321, 1489–1522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gredebäck, G., Stasiewicz, D., Falck-Ytter, T., Rosander, K., & von Hofsten, C. (
2009). Action type and goal type modulate goal-directed gaze shifts in 14-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 45(4), 1190–1194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (
2013). Embodied action and organizational activity. InJ. Sidnell, & T. Stivers(Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 283–307). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Herberg, J.S., Saylor, M.M., Ratanaswasd, P., Levin, D.T., & Wilkes, D.M. (
2008). Audience- Contingent variation in action demonstrations for humans and computers. Cognitive Science, 32(6), 1003–1020. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., & Robinson, J.D. (
2006). The structure of patients’ presenting concerns: Physicians’ opening questions. Health Communication, 19(2), 89–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knoll, M., & Scharrer, L. (
2007). Acoustic and affective comparisons of natural and imaginary infant-, foreigner-and adult-directed speech. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech 2007) , 1414–1417.
Lock, A., & Zukow-Goldring, P. (
2010). Preverbal communication. InJ.G. Bremner, & T. Wachs(Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of infant development, vol. 1, basic research (pp. 395–425). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyon, C., Nehaniv, C.L., & Saunders, J. (
2012). Interactive language learning by robots. The transition form babbling to word forms. PLoS One, 7(6), e38236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. (
1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (
2006). Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: Projecting the end of the turn and closing of the sequence. Discourse Studies (Special Issue: Discourse, Interaction and Cognition), 8(1), 117–129.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L., & Pekarek-Döhler, S. (
2000). Interaction sociale et cognition située. Quels modèles pour la recherche sur l’acquisition des langues? Acquistion et Interaction en Langue Etrangère (AILE), 121, 147–174.Google Scholar
Nagai, Y., & Rohlfing, K. (
2009). Computational analysis of motionese. Toward scaffolding robot action learning. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 10(1), 44–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pea, R.D. (
2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pitsch, K. (
2006). Sprache, Körper, intermediäre Objekte: Zur Multimodalität der Interaktion im bilingualen Geschichtsunterricht. Doctoral dissertation. Bielefeld University. Faculty of Linguistics and Literary Studies. urn:nbn:de:hbz:361–17464. [URL]Google Scholar
Pitsch, K., Vollmer, A.-L., Fritsch, J., Wrede, B., Rohlfing, K., & Sagerer, G. (
2009). On the loop of action modification and the recipient’s gaze in adult-child interaction. Proceedings of the Gestures and Speech in Interaction Conference (GESPIN 2009) , Poznan, Poland, 6pages.
Pitsch, K., Lohan, K.S., Rohlfing, K., Saunders, J., Nehaniv, C.L., & Wrede, B. (
2012). Better be reactive at the beginning. Implications of the first seconds of an encounter for the tutoring style in human-robot-interaction. Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (Ro-Man 2012) , Paris, France, 974–981.
Pitsch, K., Vollmer, A.-L., & Mühlig, M. (
2013). Robot feedback shapes the tutor’s presentation. How a robot’s online gaze strategies lead to micro-adaptation of the human’s conduct. Interaction Studies, 14(2), 268–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rader, N.V., & Zukow-Goldring, P. (
2010). How the hands control attention during early word learning. Gesture 10, 2(3), 202–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reese, E., Haden, C.A., & Fivush, R. (
1993). Mother-child conversations about the past: Relationships of style and memory over time. Cognitive Development, 8(4), 403–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, K., & Seedhouse, P. (
2005). Applying conversation analysis. Macmillan: Palgrave.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohlfing, K., Fritsch, J., Wrede, B., & Jungmann, T. (
2006). How can multimodal cues from child-directed interaction reduce learning complexity in robots? Advanced Robotics, 20(10), 1183–1199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J.D., & Heritage, J. (
2006). Physicians’ opening questions and patients’ satisfaction. Patient Education and Counseling, 601, 279–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothwell, A., Lyon, C., Nehaniv, C.L., & Saunders, J. (
2011). From babbling towards first words: the emergenc of speech in a robot in real-time interaction. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life , 86–91.
Sacks, H. (
1984). Notes on methodology. InJ.M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage(Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 21–27). Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (
1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., & Garfinkel, H. (
1986). On formal structures of practical action. InH. Garfinkel(Ed.), Ethnomethodological studies of work (pp. 160–193). London: Routledge & Paul.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E.A. (
1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 88–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schillingmann, L., Wrede, B., & Rohlfing, K.J. (
2009). A computational model of acoustic packaging. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 1(4), 226–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, R., & Deppermann, A. (
2007). Monitoring und Koordination als Voraussetzungen der multimodalen Konstitution von Interaktionsraum. InR. Schmitt(Ed.), Koordination: Beiträge zur Analyse multimodaler Kommunikation (pp. 95–128). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Selting, M., Auer, A., et al.. (
2010). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung, 101, 353–402.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (
Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Smith, N.A., & Trainor, L.J. (
2008). Infant-directed speech is modulated by infant feedback. Infancy, 13(4), 410–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steels, L., & Kaplan, F. (
2001). AIBO’s first words. The social learning of language and meaning. Evolution of Communication, 4(1), 3–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J. (
1993). Gesture as communication I: Its coordination with gaze and speech. Communication Monographs, 60(4), 275–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ten Have, P. (
1999). Doing conversation analysis. A practical guide. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Vollmer, A.-L., Lohan, K.S., Fischer, K., Nagai, Y., Pitsch, K., Fritsch, J., Rohlfing, K., & Wrede, B. (
2009a). People modify their tutoring behavior in robot-directed interaction for action learning. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Development and Learning (ICDL 2009) , Shanghai, China, 1–6.
Vollmer, A.-L., Lohan, K.S., Fritsch, J., Rohlfing, K., & Wrede, B. (
2009b). Which ‘motionese’ parameters change with children’s age?Paper presented at the Cognitive development society’s biennial meeting 2009 , San Antonia, Texas.
Vollmer, A.-L., Pitsch, K., Lohan, K., Fritsch, J., Rohlfing, K., & Wrede, B. (
2010). Developing feedback: How children of different age contribute to a tutoring interaction with adults. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Development and Learning (ICDL 2010) , Ann Arbor, Michigan, 6pages.
Vollmer, A.-L. (
2011). Measurement and analysis of interactive behavior in tutoring action with children and robots. Ph.D. thesis. Bielefeld University. Faculty of Technology. urn:nbn:de:hbz:361–24251023. [URL]Google Scholar
Vollmer, A.-L., Mühlig, M., Steil, J.J., Pitsch, K., Fritsch, J., Rohlfing, K., & Wrede, B. (
2014): Robots show us how to teach them: Feedback from Robots shapes Tutoring behavior during action learning. PLoS One9(3): e91349. Doi: DOI logo.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S. (
1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J.V., McNamee, G.D., McLane, J.B., & Budwig, N. (
1980). The adult-child dyad as a problem-solving system. Child Development, 511, 1215–1221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wrede, B., Rohlfing, K., Hanheide, M., & Sagerer, G. (
2008). Towards learning by interacting. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot-Interaction (HRI 2008) , Amsterdam, NL, 139–150.
Zukow, P.G. (
1990). Socio-perceptual bases for the emergence of language: An alternative to innatist approaches. Developmental Psychobiology, 23(7), 705–726. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zukow-Goldring, P. (
1996). Sensitive caregiving fosters the comprehension of speech: When gestures speak louder than words. Early Development and Parenting, 5(4), 195–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997). A social ecological realist approach to the emergence of the lexicon: Educating attention to amodal invariants in gesture and speech. InC. Dent-Read, & P. Zukow-Goldring(Eds.), Evolving explanations of development: Ecological approaches to organism-environment systems (pp. 199–250). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001). Perceiving referring actions: Latino and euro-american infants and caregivers comprehending speech. Children’s Language, 111, 139–165.Google Scholar
2006). Assisted imitation: Affordances, effectivities, and the mirror system in early language development. InM.A. Arbib(Ed.), From action to language via the mirror neuron system (pp. 469–500). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012). Assisted imitation: First steps in the seed model of language development. Language Sciences, 34(5), 569–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zukow-Goldring, P., & Arbib, M.A. (
2007). Affordances, effectivities, and assisted imitation: Caregivers and the directing of attention. Neurocomputing, 70(13–15), 2181–2193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zukow-Goldring, P., & Ferko, K.R. (
1994). An ecological approach to the emergence of the lexicon. Socializing attention. InV. John-Steiner, C.P. Panofsky, & L.W. Smith(Eds.), Sociocultural approaches to language and literacy: An interactionist perspective (pp. 170–190). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 15 other publications

Cyra, K. & K. Pitsch
2017. 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), ► pp. 329 ff. DOI logo
Donnarumma, Francesco, Haris Dindo & Giovanni Pezzulo
2018. Sensorimotor Communication for Humans and Robots: Improving Interactive Skills by Sending Coordination Signals. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems 10:4 ► pp. 903 ff. DOI logo
Gerhardt, Cornelia
2019. ‘Showing’ as a Means of Engaging a Reluctant Participant into a Joint Activity. In Embodied Activities in Face-to-face and Mediated Settings, ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Heller, Vivien & Katharina J. Rohlfing
2017. Reference as an Interactive Achievement: Sequential and Longitudinal Analyses of Labeling Interactions in Shared Book Reading and Free Play. Frontiers in Psychology 8 DOI logo
Hindemith, Lukas, Jan Philip Göpfert, Christiane B. Wiebel-Herboth, Britta Wrede & Anna-Lisa Vollmer
2021. Why robots should be technical. Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 22:2 ► pp. 244 ff. DOI logo
Lyon, Caroline, Chrystopher L. Nehaniv, Joe Saunders, Tony Belpaeme, Ambra Bisio, Kerstin Fischer, Frank Förster, Hagen Lehmann, Giorgio Metta, Vishwanathan Mohan, Anthony Morse, Stefano Nolfi, Francesco Nori, Katharina Rohlfing, Alessandra Sciutti, Jun Tani, Elio Tuci, Britta Wrede, Arne Zeschel & Angelo Cangelosi
2016. Embodied Language Learning and Cognitive Bootstrapping: Methods and Design Principles. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 13:3 ► pp. 105 ff. DOI logo
Nomikou, Iris, Giuseppe Leonardi, Karharina J. Rohlfing & Joanna Rączaszek‐Leonardi
2016. Constructing Interaction: The Development of Gaze Dynamics. Infant and Child Development 25:3 ► pp. 277 ff. DOI logo
Opfermann, Christiane, Karola Pitsch, Ramin Yaghoubzadeh & Stefan Kopp
2017. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Agent Interaction, ► pp. 161 ff. DOI logo
Pitsch, Karola
2016. Limits and opportunities for mathematizing communicational conduct for social robotics in the real world? Toward enabling a robot to make use of the human’s competences. AI & SOCIETY 31:4 ► pp. 587 ff. DOI logo
Pitsch, Karola, Marc Relieu & Julia Velkovska
2020. Répondre aux questions d’un robot. Réseaux N° 220-221:2 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Rohlfing, Katharina J., Philipp Cimiano, Ingrid Scharlau, Tobias Matzner, Heike M. Buhl, Hendrik Buschmeier, Elena Esposito, Angela Grimminger, Barbara Hammer, Reinhold Hab-Umbach, Ilona Horwath, Eyke Hullermeier, Friederike Kern, Stefan Kopp, Kirsten Thommes, Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo, Carsten Schulte, Henning Wachsmuth, Petra Wagner & Britta Wrede
2021. Explanation as a Social Practice: Toward a Conceptual Framework for the Social Design of AI Systems. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems 13:3 ► pp. 717 ff. DOI logo
Rohlfing, Katharina J., Anna-Lisa Vollmer, Jannik Fritsch & Britta Wrede
2022. Which “motionese” parameters change with children's age? Disentangling attention-getting from action-structuring modifications. Frontiers in Communication 7 DOI logo
Rohlfing, Katharina J., Britta Wrede, Anna-Lisa Vollmer & Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
2016. An Alternative to Mapping a Word onto a Concept in Language Acquisition: Pragmatic Frames. Frontiers in Psychology 7 DOI logo
Rudaz, Damien, Karen Tatarian, Rebecca Stower & Christian Licoppe
2023. From Inanimate Object to Agent: Impact of Pre-beginnings on the Emergence of Greetings with a Robot. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 12:3 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Vollmer, Anna-Lisa & Lars Schillingmann
2018. On Studying Human Teaching Behavior with Robots: a Review. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 9:4 ► pp. 863 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 september 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.