Asymmetric number–space association leads to more efficient processing of congruent information in domestic chicks

Loconsole, Maria; Regolin, Lucia; Rugani, Rosa

doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2023.1115662

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to our previous results, we found that when chicks are tested with the 3 vs. 4 comparison, following a one-by-one presentation of all identical elements, they failed in discriminating among the two resulting sets and showed no spatial bias. However, in the experimental conditions when the grouping cognitive strategy was induced, we found a facilitation in the opposite direction to that reported in our previous work [34]. Although a one-by-one presentation of individually different objects favours a right bias, grouping strategies seem to trigger a leftward response pattern, probably reflecting a higher activation of the right hemisphere.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 92%

“…A previous study showed that baby chicks are better at locating the larger of two sets of objects when this is hidden behind a panel on their right side [31,34]. Here, we assessed whether the same occurs when chicks are tested on a similar task that, however, favours a different cognitive strategy, i.e., grouping.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Yet this facilitation emerged only when chicks were supported in the discrimination by an auxiliary cognitive strategy, namely individual recognition, either during rearing or testing did each element depict individual face-like features that made it unique (for a detailed explanation see [25]). When the chicks were reared and tested with all identical stimuli, with the same face-like features depicted on each element, they failed in the overall discrimination and showed no spatial bias [34]. We argued that when the task is too complex and the performance is not supported by any additional strategy, the chicks cannot distinguish between the two sets; hence, they do not process the stimuli in the first place and choose randomly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…If so, this would result in a lateralized behaviour for which chicks perform better when required to respond on a specific side of the arena. A previous study [34] showed that paradigms that support individual processing as a cognitive strategy result in boosting correct responses to the right side. While it is known that grouping is an effective strategy to improve arithmetic performance in chicks (similarly to individual processing), a side bias related to this modality of presentation has not been described thus far.…”

Section: Training and Testmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Passive Grouping Enhances Proto-Arithmetic Calculation for Leftward Correct Responses

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Baby chicks and other animals including human infants master simple arithmetic. They discriminate 2 vs. 3 (1 + 1 vs. 1 + 1 + 1) but fail with 3 vs. 4 (1 + 1 + 1 vs. 1 + 1 + 1 + 1). Performance is restored when elements are grouped as 2 + 1 vs. 2 + 2. Here, we address whether grouping could lead to asymmetric response bias. We recoded behavioural data from a previous study, in which separate groups of four-day-old domestic chicks underwent an arithmetic task: when the objects were presented one-by-one (1 + 1 + 1 vs. 1 + 1 + 1 + 1), chicks failed in locating the larger group irrespective of its position and did not show any side bias; Experiment 1. When the objects were presented as grouped (2 + 1 vs. 2 + 2), chicks succeeded, performing better when the larger set was on their left; Experiment 2. A similar leftward bias was also observed with harder discriminations (4 vs. 5: 3 + 1 vs. 3 + 2), with baby chicks succeeding in the task only when the larger set was on the left (Experiments 3 and 4). A previous study showed a rightward bias, with tasks enhancing individual processing. Despite a similar effect in boosting proto-arithmetic calculations, individual processing (eliciting a right bias) and grouping (eliciting a left bias) seem to depend on distinct cognitive mechanisms.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%