Perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion in four-day-old domestic chicks (Gallus gallus)

Animal Cognition

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 895-906

  Rosa Salva, O ^a   Rugani, R ^b   Cavazzana, A ^b   Regolin, L ^b   Vallortigara, G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Comparative study; Domestic chicks; Ebbinghaus illusion; Gallus gallus; Titchener circles

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; AVES; COLUMBA; GALLUS GALLUS; PAPIO; PRIMATES;

ANIMAL; CHICKEN; FEMALE; NEWBORN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGY; VISUAL ILLUSION;

ANIMALS; ANIMALS, NEWBORN; CHICKENS; FEMALE; OPTICAL ILLUSIONS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION;

EID: 84885859644     PISSN: 14359448     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10071-013-0622-2     Document Type: Article

References (121)

1. Aglioti S, DeSouza JF, Goodale MA (1995) Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Curr Biol 5: 679-685.
2. Barbet I, Fagot J (2002) Perception of the corridor illusion by baboons (Papio papio). Behav Brain Res 132: 111-115.
3. Bayne K, Davis R (1983) Susceptibility of rhesus monkeys (Macacamulatta) to the Ponzo illusion. Bull Psychonomic Soc 21: 476-478.
4. Benowitz LI, Karten HJ (1976) Organization of the tectofugal visual pathway in the pigeon: a retrograde transport study. J Comp Neurol 167: 503-520.
5. Bessette BB, Hodos W (1989) Intensity, color, and pattern discrimination deficits after lesions of the core and belt regions of the ectostriatum. Vis Neurosci 2: 27-34.
6. Bondarko VM, Semenov LA (2004) Size estimates in Ebbinghaus illusion in adults and children of different age. Hum Physiol 30(1): 24-30.
7. Cavoto KK, Cook RG (2001) Cognitive precedence for local information in hierarchical stimulus processing by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 27(1): 3-16.
8. Cerella J (1980) The pigeon's analysis of pictures. Pattern Recog 12(1): 1-6.
9. Choplin JM, Medin DL (1999) Similarity of the perimeters in the Ebbinghaus illusion. Percept Psychophys 61: 3-12.
10. Clara E, Regolin L, Zanforlin M, Vallortigara G (2006) Domestic chicks perceive stereokinetic illusions. Perception 35(7): 983-992.
11. Cohen DH (1967) The hyperstriatal region of the avian forebrain: a lesion study of possible functions, including its role in cardiac and respiratory conditioning. J Comp Neurol 131: 559-570.
12. Cook RG (1992) Dimensional organization and texture discrimination in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 18: 354-363.
13. Cook RG, Cavoto KK, Cavoto BR (1996) Mechanisms of multidimensional grouping, fusion, and search. Anim Learn Behav 24: 150-167.
14. Coren S, Enns JT (1993) Size contrast as a function of conceptual similarity between test and inducers. Percept Psychophys 54: 579-588.
15. Coren S, Porac C, Aks DJ, Morikawa K (1988) A method to assess the relative contribution of lateral inhibition to the magnitude of visual-geometric illusions. Percept Psychophys 43: 551-558.
16. Danckert JA, Sharif N, Haffenden AM, Schiff KC, Goodale MA (2002) A temporal analysis of grasping in the Ebbinghaus illusion: planning versus online control. Exp Brain Res 144: 275-280.
17. De Fockert J, Davidoff J, Fagot J, Parron C, Goldstein J (2007) More accurate size contrast judgments in the Ebbinghaus illusion by a remote culture. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 3: 738-742.
18. De Grave DDJ, Biegstraaten M, Smeets JBJ, Brenner E (2005) Effects of the Ebbinghaus figure on grasping are not only due to misjudged size. Exp Brain Res 163: 58-64.
19. Deruelle C, Fagot J (1998) Visual search for global/local stimulus features in humans and baboons. Psychonomic Bull Rev 5: 476-481.
20. Doherty MJ, Tsuji H, Phillips WA (2008) The context sensitivity of visual size perception varies across cultures. Perception 37: 1426-1433.
21. Doherty MJ, Campbell NM, Tsuji H, Phillips WA (2010) The Ebbinghaus illusion deceives adults but not young children. Dev Sci 13: 714-721.
22. Dominguez KE (1954) A study of visual illusions in the monkey. J Genet Psychol 85: 105-127.
23. Duemmler T, Franz VH, Jovanovic B, Schwarzer G (2008) Effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion on children's perception and grasping. Exp Brain Res 186: 249-260.
24. Ebbinghaus H (1902) Grundzüge der psychologie. Veit & comp, Leipzig.
25. Fagot J, Deruelle C (1997) Processing of global and local visual information and hemispheric specialization in humans (Homo sapiens) and baboons (Papio papio). J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 23: 429-442.
26. Fontanari L, Rugani R, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2011) Object individuation in three-day old chicks: use of property and spatiotemporal information. Dev Sci 14: 1235-1244.
27. Fredes F, Tapia S, Letelier JC, Marín G, Mpodozis J (2010) Topographic arrangement of the rotundo-entopallial projection in the pigeon (Columba livia). J Comp Neurol 518: 4342-4361.
28. Fremouw T, Herbranson WT, Shimp CP (1998) Priming of attention to local and global levels of visual analysis. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 24: 278-290.
29. Fujita K (1996) Linear perspective and the Ponzo illusion: a comparison between rhesus monkeys and humans. Jpn Psychol Res 38: 136-145.
30. Fujita K (1997) Perception of the Ponzo illusion by rhesus monkeys, chimpanzees, and humans: similarity and difference in the three primate species. Percept Psychophys 59: 284-292.
31. Fujita K (2001) Perceptual completion in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and pigeons (Columba livia). Percept Psychophys 63: 115-125.
32. Fujita K (2006) Seeing what is not there: illusion, completion, and spatio-temporal boundary formation in comparative perspective. In: Wasserman EA, Zentall TR (eds) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 29-52.
33. Fujita K, Blough DS, Blough PM (1991) Pigeons see the Ponzo illusion. Anim Learn Behav 19: 283-293.
34. Fujita K, Blough DS, Blough PM (1993) Effects of the inclination of context lines on perception of the Ponzo illusion by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 21: 29-34.
35. Ganz L (1966) Mechanism of the figural aftereffects. Psychol Rev 73: 128-150.
36. Girgus JS, Coren S, Agdern M (1972) The interrelationship between the Ebbinghaus and Delboeuf illusions. J Exp Psychol 95: 453-455.
37. Goodale MA (1983) Visually guided pecking in the pigeon (Columba livia). Brain Behav Evol 22: 22-41.
38. Goodale MA, Milner AD (1992) Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci 15: 20-25.
39. Hanisch C, Konczak J, Dohle C (2001) The effect of the Ebbinghaus illusion on grasping behaviour of children. Exp Brain Res 137: 237-245.
40. Happé F (1996) Studying weak central coherence at low levels: children with autism do not succumb to visual illusions. A research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 37: 873-877.
41. Harris AV (1968) Perception of the horizontal-vertical illusion in stumptail monkeys. Radford Rev 22: 61-72.
42. Hellmann B, Güntürkün O (1999) Visual-field-specific heterogeneity within the tecto-rotundal projection of the pigeon. Eur J Neurosci 11: 2635-2650.
43. Hodos W, Bonbright JC (1974) Intensity difference thresholds in pigeons after lesions of the tectofugal and thalamofugal visual pathways. J Comp Physiol Psychol 87: 1013-1031.
44. Hodos W, Karten HJ (1966) Brightness and pattern discrimination deficits in the pigeon after lesions of nucleus rotundus. Exp Brain Res 2: 151-167.
45. Hodos W, Karten HJ (1970) Visual intensity and pattern discrimination deficits after lesions of ectostriatum in pigeons. J Comp Neurol 140: 53-68.
46. Hodos W, Karten HJ (1974) Visual intensity and pattern discrimination deficits after lesions of the optic lobe in pigeons. Brain Behav Evol 9: 165-194.
47. Hodos W, Macko KA, Bessette BB (1984) Near-field acuity changes after visual system lesions in pigeons II. Telencephalon. Behav Brain Res 13: 15-30.
48. Hodos W, Weiss SR, Bessette BB (1986) Size-threshold changes after lesions of the visual telencephalon in pigeons. Behav Brain Res 21: 203-214.
49. Hodos W, Weiss SR, Bessette BB (1988) Intensity difference thresholds after lesions of ectostriatum in pigeons. Behav Brain Res 30: 43-53.
50. Holmes G (1918) Disturbances of vision by cerebral lesions. Br J Ophthal 2: 353-384.
51. Holmes G (1944) The organization of the visual cortex in man. Proc Roy Soc B 132: 348-361.
52. Horton J, Hoyt W (1991) The representation of the visual field in human striate cortex. Arch Ophthalmol 109: 816-824.
53. Jarvis ED, Güntürkün O, Bruce L, Csillag A, Karten H, Kuenzel W, Medina L, Paxinos G, Perkel DJ, Shimizu T, Striedter G, Wild JM, Ball GF, Dugas-Ford J, Durand SE, Hough GE, Husband S, Kubikova L, Lee DW, Mello CV, Powers A, Siang C, Smulders TV, Wada K, White SA, Yamamoto K, Yu J, Reiner A, Butler AB (2005) Avian brains and a new understanding of vertebrate evolution. Nat Rev Neurosci 6: 151-159.
54. Kaldy Z, Kovacs I (2003) Visual context integration is not fully developed in 4-year-old children. Perception 32: 657-666.
55. Kertzman C, Hodos W (1988) Size-difference thresholds after lesions of thalamic visual nuclei in pigeons. Vis Neurosci 1: 83-92.
56. Kimchi R (1992) Primacy of wholistic processing and global/local paradigm: a critical review. Psychol Bull 112: 24-38.
57. Lamb MR, Robertson LC (1988) The processing of hierarchical stimuli: effects of retinal locus, locational uncertainty and stimulus identity. Percept Psychophys 44: 172-181.
58. Lea SEG, Slater AM, Ryan CME (1996) Perception of object unity in chicks: a comparison with the human infant. Infant Behav Dev 19: 501-504.
59. Macchi Cassia V, Simion F, Milani I, Umiltà C (2002) Dominance of global visual properties at birth. J Exp Psychol Gen 131(3): 398-411.
60. Macko KA, Hodos W (1984) Near-field acuity after visual system lesions in pigeons I. Thalamus. Behav Brain Res 13: 1-14.
61. Martinoya C, Rivaud S, Bloch S (1984) Comparing frontal and lateral viewing in pigeons II. Velocity thresholds for movement discrimination. Behav Brain Res 8: 375-385.
62. Mascalzoni E, Regolin L (2011) Animal visual perception. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 2: 106-116.
63. Mascalzoni E, Osorio D, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2012) Symmetry perception by poultry chicks and its implications for three-dimensional objects recognition. Proc R Soc B 279(1730): 841-846.
64. Massaro DW, Anderson NH (1971) Judgemental model of the Ebbinghaus illusion. J Exp Psychol 89: 147-151.
65. Murray SO, Boyaci H, Kersten D (2006) The representation of perceived angular size in human primary visual cortex. Nat Neurosci 9: 429-434.
66. Nakamura N, Fujita K, Ushitani T, Miyata H (2006) Perception of the standard and the reversed Müller-Lyer figures in pigeons (Columba livia) and humans (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol 120: 252-261.
67. Nakamura N, Watanabe S, Fujita K (2008) Pigeons perceive the Ebbinghaus-Titchener circles as an assimilation illusion. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 34(3): 375-387.
68. Nakamura N, Watanabe S, Fujita K (2009) Further analysis of perception of reversed Müller-Lyer figures for pigeons (Columba livia). Percept Mot Skills 108: 239-250.
69. Navon D (1977) Forest before trees-precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognit Psychol 9: 353-383.
70. Nicolas S (1995) Joseph Delboeuf on visual illusions: a historical sketch. Am J Psychol 108: 563-574.
71. Oyama T (1960) Japanese studies on the so-called geometrical-optical illusions. Psychologia 3: 7-20.
72. Parron C, Fagot J (2007) Comparison of grouping abilities in humans (Homo sapiens) and baboons (Papio papio) with Ebbinghaus illusion. J Comp Psychol 121: 405-411.
73. Pepperberg IM, Vicinay J, Cavanagh P (2008) Processing of the Müller-Lyer illusion by a grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Perception 37: 765-781.
74. Regolin L, Vallortigara G (1995) Perception of partly occluded objects by young chicks. Percept Psychophys 57: 971-976.
75. Regolin L, Tommasi L, Vallortigara G (2000) Visual perception of biological motion in newly hatched chicks as revealed by an imprinting procedure. Anim Cogn 3: 53-60.
76. Regolin L, Garzotto B, Rugani R, Pagni P, Vallortigara G (2005a) Working memory in the chick: parallel and lateralized mechanisms for encoding of object- and position-specific information. Behav Brain Res 157: 1-9.
77. Regolin L, Rugani R, Pagni P, Vallortigara G (2005b) Delayed search for social and nonsocial goals by young domestic chicks Gallus gallus domesticus. Anim Behav 70: 855-864.
78. Regolin L, Rugani R, Stancher G, Vallortigara G (2011) Spontaneous discrimination of possible and impossible objects by newly hatched chicks. Biol Lett 7: 654-657.
79. Reiner A (2005) A new avian brain nomenclature: why, how and what. Brain Res Bull 66: 317-331.
80. Reiner A, Yamamoto K, Karten HJ (2005) Organization and evolution of the avian forebrain. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell EvolBiol 287A: 1080-1120.
81. Roberts B, Harris MG, Yates TA (2005) The roles of inducer size and distance in the Ebbinghaus illusion (Titchener circle). Perception 34: 847-856.
82. Rosa Salva O, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2010) Faces are special for newly hatched chicks: evidence for inborn domain-specific mechanisms underlying spontaneous preferences for face-like stimuli. Dev Sci 13(4): 565-577.
83. Rosa Salva O, Farroni T, Regolin L, Vallortigara G, Johnson MH (2011) The evolution of social orienting: evidence from chicks (Gallus gallus) and human newborns. PLoS One 6(4): e18802.
84. Rosa Salva O, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2012) Inversion of contrast polarity abolishes spontaneous preferences for face-like stimuli in newborn chicks. Behav Brain Res 228: 113-143.
85. Rugani R, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2008) Discrimination of small numerosities in young chicks. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 34: 388-399.
86. Rugani R, Fontanari L, Simoni E, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2009) Arithmetic in newborn chicks. Proc Royal Soc B 276: 2451-2460.
87. Rugani R, Kelly MD, Szelest I, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2010a) It is only humans that count from left to righ? Biol Lett 6: 290-292.
88. Rugani R, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2010b) Imprinted numbers: newborn chicks' sensitivity to number versus continuous extent of objects they have been reared with. Dev Sci 13: 790-797.
89. Rugani R, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2011) Summation of large numerousness by newborn chicks. Front Psychol 2: 179.
90. Schmid KL, Wildsoet CF (1998) Assessment of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in the chick using an optokinetic nystagmus paradigm. Vision Res 38: 2629-2634.
91. Schwarzkopf D, Song C, Rees G (2011) The surface area of human V1 predicts the subjective experience of object size. Nat Neurosci 14: 28-30.
92. Shimizu T (2004) Comparative cognition and neuroscience: misconceptions about brain evolution. Jpn Psychol Res 46: 246-254.
93. Shimizu T, Bowers AN (1999) Visual circuits of the avian telencephalon: evolutionary implications. Behav Brain Res 98: 183-191.
94. Shimizu T, Patton TB, Husband SA (2010) Avian visual behavior and the organization of the telencephalon. Brain Behav Evolution 75: 204-217.
95. Song C, Schwarzkopf DS, Rees G (2011) Interocular induction of illusory size perception. BMC Neurosci 12: 27.
96. Spinozzi G, De Lillo C, Truppa V (2003) Global and local processing of hierarchical visual stimuli in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J Comp Psychol 117(1): 15-23.
97. Suganuma E, Pessoa VF, Monge-Fuentes V, Castro BM, Tavares MCH (2007) Perception of the Müller-Lyer illusion in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Behav Brain Res 182: 67-72.
98. Timney B, Keil K (1996) Horses are sensitive to pictorial depth cues. Perception 25: 1121-1128.
99. Truppa V, Sovrano VA, Spinozzi G, Bisazza A (2010) Processing of visual hierarchical stimuli by fish (Xenoteca eiseni). Behav Brain Res 207(1): 51-60.
100. Tudusciuc O, Nieder A (2010) Comparison of length judgments and the Müller-Lyer illusion in monkeys and humans. Exp Brain Res 207: 221-231.
101. Ushitani T, Fujita K, Yamanaka R (2001) Do pigeons (Columba livia) perceive object unity? Anim Cogn 4: 153-161.
102. Vallortigara G (2004) Visual cognition and representation in birds and primates. In: Rogers LJ, Kaplan G (eds) Vertebrate comparative cognition: are primates superior to non-primates? Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 57-94.
103. Vallortigara G (2006) The cognitive chicken: visual and spatial cognition in a non-mammalian brain. In: Wasserman EA, Zentall TR (eds) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 41-58.
104. Vallortigara G (2012) Core knowledge of object, number, and geometry: a comparative and neural approach. Cogn Neuropsychol 29(1-2): 231-236.
105. Vallortigara G, Regolin L (2006) Gravity bias in the interpretation of biological motion by inexperienced chicks. Curr Biol 16: 279-280.
106. Vallortigara G, Regolin L, Marconato F (2005) Visually inexperienced chicks exhibit spontaneous preference for biological motion patterns. PLoS Biol 3: 1312-1316.
107. Vallortigara G, Snyder A, Kaplan G, Bateson P, Clayton NS, Rogers LJ (2008) Are animals autistic savants? PLoS Biol 6: 208-214.
108. Vallortigara G, Chiandetti C, Rugani R, Sovrano VA, Regolin L (2010) Animal cognition. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cogn Sci 1: 882-893.
109. Wade NJ (2005) Perception and illusions, historical perspectives. Springer, Dordrech.
110. Wade NJ (2010) Visual illusions. Corsini encyclopedia of psychology. 1-2.
111. Wang YC, Jiang C, Frost BJ (1993) Visual processing in pigeon nucleus rotundus: luminance, color, motion, and looming subdivisions. Visual Neurosci 10: 21-30.
112. Warden CJ, Baar J (1929) The Müller-Lyer illusion in the ring dove, Turtur risorius. J Comp Psychol 9(4): 275-292.
113. Wasserman EA, Kirkpatrick-Steger K, van Hamme LJ, Biederman I (1993) Pigeons are sensitive to the spatial organization of complex visual stimuli. Psychol Sci 4: 336-341.
114. Watanabe S (2001) Discrimination of cartoons and photographs in pigeons: effects of scrambling of elements. Behav Proc 53: 3-9.
115. Watanabe S, Nakamura N, Fujita K (2011) Pigeons perceive a reversed Zöllner illusion. Cognition 119: 137-141.
116. Weintraub DJ (1979) Ebbinghaus illusion: context, contour, and age influence the judged size of a circle admist circles. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 5: 353-364.
117. Weintraub DJ, Schneck MK (1986) Fragments of Delboeuf and Ebbinghaus illusions: contour/context explorations of misjudged circle size. Percept Psychopys 40: 147-158.
118. Winslow CN (1933) Visual illusions in the chick. Arch Physiol 153: 1-83.
119. Yamazaki Y, Otsuka Y, Kanazawa S, Yamaguchi MK (2010) Perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion in 5-to-8-month-old infants. Jpn Psychol Res 52(1): 33-40.
120. Zanforlin M (1981) Visual perception of complex forms (anomalous surfaces) in chicks. Ital J Psychol 1: 1-16.
121. Zanuttini L (1996) Figural and semantic factors in change in the Ebbinghaus illusion across four age groups of children. Percep Motor Skills 82: 15-18.