Lateralized mechanisms for encoding of object. Behavioral evidence from an animal model: The domestic chick (Gallus gallus)

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 5, Issue FEB, 2014, Pages

  Rugani, Rosa ^a   Salva, Orsola Rosa ^b   Regolin, Lucia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Addition; Arithmetic; Counting; Domestic chick; Lateralization; Number cognition; Number sense; Subtraction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84897633912     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00150     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Bächtold, D., Baumüller, M., and Brugger, P. (1998). Stimulus-response compatibility in representational space. Neuropsychologia 36, 731-735. doi: 10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00002-5.
2. Bowers, D., and Heilman, K. M. (1980). Pseudoneglect: effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia 18, 491-498. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(80)90151-7.
3. Brannon, E. M., and Terrace, H. S. (1998). Ordering of the numerosities 1-9 by monkeys. Science 282, 746-749. doi: 10.1126/science.282.5389.746.
4. Bueti, D., and Walsh, V. (2009). The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number and other magnitudes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364, 1831-1840. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0028.
5. Call, J. (2000). Estimating and operating on discrete quantities in oranges (Pongo pygmaeus). J. Comp. Psychol. 114, 136-147. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.114.2.136.
6. Cantlon, J. F., and Brannon, E. M. (2007). How much does number matter to a monkey? J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 33, 32-41. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.33.1.32.
7. Carey, S. (2004). Bootstrapping and the origins of concepts. Daedalus 133, 59-68. doi: 10.1162/001152604772746701.
8. Carey, S. (2009). The Origin of Concepts. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
9. Chiandetti, C. (2011). Pseudoneglect and embryonic light stimulation in the avian brain. Behav. Neurosci. 125, 775-782. doi: 10.1037/a0024721.
10. Cordes, S., Gelman, R., Gallistel, C. R., and Whalen, J. (2001). Variability signatures distinguish verbal from nonverbal counting for both large and small numbers. Psychol. Bull. Rev. 8, 698-707. doi: 10.3758/BF03196206.
11. Daisley, J. N., Mascalzoni, E., Rosa Salva, O., Rugani, R., and Regolin, L. (2009). Lateralization of social cognition in the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364, 965-981. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0229.
12. Dehaene, S. (1993). Numerical Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell edition.
13. Dehaene, S. (1997). The Number Sense. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14. Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., and Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 122, 371-396. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371.
15. de Hevia, M. D., Girelli, L., Bricolo, E., and Vallar, G. (2008). The representational space of numerical magnitude: illusions of length. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 61, 1496-1514. doi: 10.1080/17470210701560674.
16. de Hevia, M. D., and Spelke, E. S. (2009). Spontaneous mapping of number and space in adults and young children. Cognition 110, 198-207. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.003.
17. de Hevia, M. D., and Spelke, E. S. (2010). Number-space mapping in human infants. Psychol. Sci. 21, 653-660. doi: 10.1177/0956797610366091.
18. Diekamp, B., Regolin, L., Gunturkun, O., and Vallortigara, G. (2005). A left-sided visuospatial bias in birds. Curr. Biol. 15, R372-R373. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.05.017.
19. Fias, W., and Fischer, M. H. (2005). "Spatial representation of number," in Handbook of Mathematical Cognition, ed J. Campbell (Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press), 43-54.
20. Fischer, M. H., and Brugger, P. (2011). When digits help digits: spatial-numerical associations point to finger counting as prime example of embodied cognition. Front. Psychol. 2:260. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00260.
21. Fontanari, L., Rugani, R., Regolin, L., and Vallortigara, G. (2011). Object individuation in 3-day old chicks: use of property and spatiotemporal information. Dev. Sci. 14, 1235-1244. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01074.x.
22. Galton, F. (1880). Visualised numerals. Nature 21, 252-256. doi: 10.1038/021252a0.
23. Garland, A., Low, J., and Burns, K. C. (2012). Large quantity discrimination by North Island robins (Petroica longipes). Anim. Cogn. 15, 1129-1140. doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0537-3.
24. Göbel, S., Walsh, V., and Rushworth, M. F. S. (2001). The mental number line and the human angular gyrus. Neuroimage 14, 1278-1289. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0927.
25. Houndé, O., and Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2003). Neural foundations of logical and mathematical cognition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 4, 507-514. doi: 10.1038/nrn1117.
26. Jewell, G., and McCourt, M. E. (2000). Pseudoneglect: a review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neurospychologia 38, 93-110. doi: 10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00045-7.
27. Judge, P. G., Evans, T. A., and Vyas, D. K. (2005). Ordinal representation of numerical quantities by brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. 31, 79-94. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.31.1.79.
28. Loetscher, T., Schwarz, U., Schubiger, M., and Brugger, P. (2008). Head turns bias the brain's internal generator. Curr. Biol. 18, 60-62. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.11.015.
29. Merritt, D., Rugani, R., and Brannon, E. (2009). Empty sets as part of the numerical continuum: conceptual precursors to the zero concept in rhesus monkeys. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 138, 258-269. doi: 10.1037/a0015231.
30. Opfer, J. E., and Furlong, E. E. (2011). How numbers bias preschoolers' spatial search. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 42, 682-695. doi: 10.1177/0022022111406098.
31. Pepperberg, M. I. (2012). Further evidence for addition and numerical competence by a Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Anim. Cogn. 15, 711-717. doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0470-5.
32. Regolin, L. (2006). The case of the line-bisection: when both humans and chickens wander left. Cortex 42, 101-103. doi: 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70330-7.
33. Regolin, L., Rugani, R., Pagni, P., and Vallortigara, G. (2005). Delayed search for a social and a non-social goal object by the young domestic chick (Gallus gallus). Anim. Behav. 70, 855-864. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.01.014.
34. Rugani, R., Fontanari, L., Simoni, E., Regolin, L., and Vallortigara, G. (2009). Arithmetic in newborn chicks. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 276, 2451-2460. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.0044.
35. Rugani, R., Kelly, M. D., Szelest, I., Regolin, L., and Vallortigara, G. (2010a). It is only humans that count from left to right? Biol. Lett. 6, 290-292. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0960.
36. Rugani, R., Cavazzana, A., Vallortigara, G., and Regolin, L. (2013c). One, two, three, four, or is there something more? Numerical discrimination in day-old domestic chicks. Anim. Cogn. 16, 557-564. doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0593-8.
37. Rugani, R., Regolin, L., and Vallortigara, G. (2007). Rudimental competence in 5-day-old domestic chicks: identification of ordinal position. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 33, 21-31. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.33.1.21.
38. Rugani, R., Regolin, L., and Vallortigara, G. (2008). Discrimination of small numerosities in young chicks. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 34, 388-399. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.34.3.388.
39. Rugani, R., Regolin, L., and Vallortigara, G. (2010b). Imprinted numbers: newborn chicks' sensitivity to number vs. continuous extent of objects they have been reared with. Dev. Sci. 13, 790-797. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.0.
40. Rugani, R., Regolin, L., and Vallortigara, G. (2011a). Summation of large numerousness in newborn chicks. Front. Psychol. 2:179. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00179.
41. Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G., and Regolin, L. (2013a). From small to large. Numerical discrimination by young domestic chicks. J. Comp. Psychol. doi: 10.1037/a0034513. [Epub ahead of print].
42. Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G., and Regolin, L. (2013b). Numerical abstraction in young domestic chicks (Gallus gallus). PLoS ONE 8:e65262. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065262.
43. Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G., Vallini, B., and Regolin, L. (2011b). Asymmetrical number-space mapping in the avian brain. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 95, 231-238. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2010.11.012.
44. Ruxton, G. D. (2006). The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student's t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Behav. Ecol. 17, 668-690. doi: 10.1093/beheco/ark016.
45. Shaki, S., and Fischer, M. (2008). Reading space into numbers-a cross-linguistic comparison of the SNARC effect. Cognition 108, 590-599. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.001.
46. Shaki, S., Fischer, M. H., and Petrusic, W. M. (2009). Reading habits for both words and numbers contribute to the SNARC effect. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 16, 328-331. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.2.328.
47. Smith, B. R., Piel, A. K., and Candland, D. K. (2003). Numerity of a Socially-housed Hamadyras baboon (Papio hamadryas) and a socially housed squirrel monkey (Saimiri Sciureus). J. Comp. Psychol. 17, 217-225. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.117.2.217.
48. Vallortigara, G. (2012). Core knowledge of object, number, and geometry: a comparative and neural approach. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 29, 213-236. doi: 10.1080/02643294.2012.654772.
49. Vallortigara, G., Chiandetti, C., Sovrano, V. A., Rugani, R., and Regolin, L. (2010a). Animal cognition. wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cogn. Sci. 1, 882-893. doi: 10.1002/wcs.75.
50. Vallortigara, G., Regolin, L., Chiandetti, C., and Rugani, R. (2010b). Rudiments of mind: number and space cognition in animals. Comp. Cogn. Behav. Rev. 5, 78-99. doi: 10.3819/ccbr.2010.50004.
51. Vallortigara, G., and Rogers, L. J. (2005). Survival with an asymmetrical brain: advantages and disadvantages of cerebral lateralization. Behav. Brain Sci. 28, 575-589. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05360109.
52. Vallortigara, G., Rogers, L. J., Bisazza, A., Lippolis, G., and Robins, A. (1998). Complementary right and left hemifield use for predatory and agonistic behaviour in toads. Neuroreport 9, 3341-3344. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199810050-00035.
53. Vuilleumier, P., Ortigue, S., and Brugger, P. (2004). The number space and neglect. Cortex 40, 399-410. doi: 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70134-5.
54. Zebian, S. (2005). Linkages between number concepts, spatial thinking, and directionality of writing: the SNARC effect and the reverse SNARC effect in English and Arabic monoliterates, biliterates, and illiterate Arabic speakers. J. Cogn. Cult. 5, 165-190. doi: 10.1163/1568537054068660.
55. Zorzi, M., Priftis, U., and Umiltà, C. (2002). Brain damage: neglect disrupts the mental number line. Nature 417, 138-139. doi: 10.1038/417138a.