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
Published online: 10 June 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.15.1.03pit
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.15.1.03pit
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.
References (69)
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.
Brand, R.J., & Shallcross, W.L. (2008). Infants prefer motionese to adult-directed action. Developmental Science, 11(6), 853–861.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
Dausendschön-Gay, U. (2003). Producing and learning to produce utterances in social interaction. Eurosla Yearbook, 31, 207–228.
De León, L. (2008). The emergent participant: Interactive patterns in the socialization of Tzotzil (Mayan) infants. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 81, 131–161.
Estigarribia, B., & Clark, E.V. (2007). Getting and maintaining attention in talk to young children. Journal of Child Language, 34(4), 799–814.
Falck-Ytter, T., Gredebäck, G., & von Hofsten, C. (2006). Infants predict other people’s action goals. Nature Neuroscience, 9(7), 878–879.
Fernald, A., & Mazzie, C. (1991). Prosody and focus in speech to infants and adults. Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 209–221.
Fogel, A. (1993). Developing through relationships: Origins of communication, self, and culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
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.
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.
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York, NY: Academic Press.
2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 321, 1489–1522.
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.
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.
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.
Heritage, J., & Robinson, J.D. (2006). The structure of patients’ presenting concerns: Physicians’ opening questions. Health Communication, 19(2), 89–102.
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..
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.
Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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..
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.
Nagai, Y., & Rohlfing, K. (2009). Computational analysis of motionese. Toward scaffolding robot action learning. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 10(1), 44–54.
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.
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]
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.
Rader, N.V., & Zukow-Goldring, P. (2010). How the hands control attention during early word learning. Gesture 10, 2(3), 202–221.
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.
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.
Robinson, J.D., & Heritage, J. (2006). Physicians’ opening questions and patients’ satisfaction. Patient Education and Counseling, 601, 279–285.
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.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Sacks, H., & Garfinkel, H. (1986). On formal structures of practical action. InH. Garfinkel(Ed.), Ethnomethodological studies of work (pp. 160–193). London: Routledge & Paul.
Schegloff, E.A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 88–128.
Schillingmann, L., Wrede, B., & Rohlfing, K.J. (2009). A computational model of acoustic packaging. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 1(4), 226–237.
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.
Selting, M., Auer, A., et al.. (2010). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung, 101, 353–402.
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Smith, N.A., & Trainor, L.J. (2008). Infant-directed speech is modulated by infant feedback. Infancy, 13(4), 410–420.
Steels, L., & Kaplan, F. (2001). AIBO’s first words. The social learning of language and meaning. Evolution of Communication, 4(1), 3–32.
Streeck, J. (1993). Gesture as communication I: Its coordination with gaze and speech. Communication Monographs, 60(4), 275–299.
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]
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: .
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
2001). Perceiving referring actions: Latino and euro-american infants and caregivers comprehending speech. Children’s Language, 111, 139–165.
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.
2012). Assisted imitation: First steps in the seed model of language development. Language Sciences, 34(5), 569–582.
Zukow-Goldring, P., & Arbib, M.A. (2007). Affordances, effectivities, and assisted imitation: Caregivers and the directing of attention. Neurocomputing, 70(13–15), 2181–2193.
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.
Cited by (17)
Cited by 17 other publications
Ferger, Anne, André Frank Krause & Karola Pitsch
Booshehri, Meisam, Hendrik Buschmeier, Philipp Cimiano, Stefan Kopp, Jaroslaw Kornowicz, Olesja Lammert, Marco Matarese, Dimitry Mindlin, Amelie Sophie Robrecht, Anna-Lisa Vollmer, Petra Wagner & Britta Wrede
Rudaz, Damien, Karen Tatarian, Rebecca Stower & Christian Licoppe
Rohlfing, Katharina J., Anna-Lisa Vollmer, Jannik Fritsch & Britta Wrede
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.
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
Pitsch, Karola, Marc Relieu & Julia Velkovska
Gerhardt, Cornelia
Donnarumma, Francesco, Haris Dindo & Giovanni Pezzulo
Vollmer, Anna-Lisa & Lars Schillingmann
Cyra, K. & K. Pitsch
Heller, Vivien & Katharina J. Rohlfing
Opfermann, Christiane, Karola Pitsch, Ramin Yaghoubzadeh & Stefan Kopp
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
Nomikou, Iris, Giuseppe Leonardi, Karharina J. Rohlfing & Joanna Rączaszek‐Leonardi
Pitsch, Karola
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 march 2026. 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.
