Hemispheric specialization in spatial versus ordinal processing in the day-old domestic chick (Gallus gallus).
asymmetry
domestic chick
hemispheres
lateralization
mental number line
number cognition
spatial-numerical association
Journal
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
ISSN: 1749-6632
Titre abrégé: Ann N Y Acad Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7506858
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
received:
19
12
2019
revised:
03
03
2020
accepted:
16
03
2020
pubmed:
9
4
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
entrez:
9
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Different species show an intriguing similarity in representing numerosity in space, starting from left to right. This bias has been attributed to a right hemisphere dominance in processing spatial information. Here, to disentangle the role of each hemisphere in dealing with spatial versus ordinal-numerical information, we tested domestic chicks during monocular versus binocular vision. In the avian brain, the contralateral hemisphere mainly processes the visual input from each eye. Four-day-old chicks learned to peck at the fourth element in a sagittal series of 10 identical elements. At testing, chicks faced a left-to-right-oriented series where the interelement distance was manipulated so that the third element was where the fourth had been at training; this compelled chicks to use either spatial or ordinal cues. Chicks tested binocularly selected both the fourth left and (to a lesser extent) right elements. Chicks tested monocularly chose the third and fourth elements on the seeing side equally. Interhemispheric cooperation resulted in the use of ordinal-numerical information, while each single hemisphere could rely on spatial or ordinal-numerical cue. Both hemispheres can process spatial and ordinal-numerical information, but their interaction results in the supremacy of processing the ordinal-numerical cue.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
34-43Informations de copyright
© 2020 New York Academy of Sciences.
Références
Dehaene, S. 2011. The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics, Revised and (Updated Ed.) New York: Oxford University Press.
Dehaene, S., S. Bossini & P. Giraux. 1993. The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 122: 371-396.
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.
Shaki, S., M.H. Fischer & W.M. Petrusic. 2009. Reading habits for both words and numbers contribute to the SNARC effect. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 16: 328-331.
de Hevia, M.D. & E.S. Spelke. 2010. Number-space mapping in human infants. Psychol. Sci. 21: 653-660.
de Hevia, M.D., V. Izard, A. Coubart, et al. 2014. Representations of space, time, and number in neonates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111: 4809-4813.
Bulf, H., M.D. de Hevia & V. Macchi Cassia. 2016. Small on the left, large on the right: numbers orient visual attention onto space in preverbal infants. Dev. Sci. 19: 394-401.
de Hevia, M.D., L. Veggiotti, A. Streri & C.D. Bonn. 2017. At birth, humans associate “few” with left and “many” with right. Curr. Biol. 27: 3879-3884.e2.
Di Giorgio, E. et al. 2019. A mental number line in human newborns. Dev. Sci. 22: e12801.
Rugani, R., L. Regolin & G. Vallortigara. 2007. Rudimental numerical competence in 5-day-old domestic chicks (Gallus gallus): identification of ordinal position. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 33: 21-31.
Rugani, R., D.M. Kelly, I. Szelest, et al. 2010. Is it only humans that count from left to right? Biol. Lett. 6: 290-292.
Rugani, R., G. Vallortigara, B. Vallini & L. Regolin. 2011. Asymmetrical number-space mapping in the avian brain. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 95: 231-238.
Adachi, I. 2014. Spontaneous spatial mapping of learned sequence in chimpanzees: evidence for a SNARC-like effect. PLoS One 9: e90373.
Rugani, R., O. Rosa Salva & L. Regolin. 2014. Lateralized mechanisms for encoding of object. Behavioral evidence from an animal model: the domestic chick (Gallus gallus). Front. Psychol. 5: 150.
Rugani, R., G. Vallortigara, K. Priftis & L. Regolin. 2015. Number-space mapping in the newborn chick resembles humans’ mental number line. Science 347: 534-536.
Rugani, R., G. Vallortigara & L. Regolin. 2016. Mapping number to space in the two hemispheres of the avian brain. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 133: 13-18.
Gazes, R.P. et al. 2017. Spatial representation of magnitude in gorillas and orangutans. Cognition 168: 312-319.
Triki, Z. & R. Bshary. 2018. Cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus discriminate numbers but fail a mental number line test. Anim. Cogn. 21: 99-107.
Beran, M.J., K. French, T.R. Smith & A.E. Parrish. 2019. Limited evidence of number-space mapping in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and capuchin monkeys (Sapajus apella). J. Comp. Psychol. 133: 281-293.
Drucker, C.B. & E.M. Brannon. 2014. Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) map number onto space. Cognition 132: 57-67.
Brugger, P. 2015. Chicks with a number sense. Science 347: 477-478.
Vallortigara, G. 2018. Comparative cognition of number and space: the case of geometry and of the mental number line. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 373: 20170120.
Zorzi, M., K. Priftis & C. Umiltà. 2002. Neglect disrupts the mental number line. Nature 417: 138-139.
Piazza, M., V. Izard, P. Pinel, et al. 2004. Tuning curves for approximate numerosity in the human intraparietal sulcus. Neuron 44: 547-555.
Eger, E. et al. 2009. Deciphering cortical number coding from human brain activity patterns. Curr. Biol. 19: 1608-1615.
Harvey, B.M., B.P. Klein, N. Petridou & S.O. Dumoulin. 2013. Topographic representation of numerosity in the human parietal cortex. Science 341: 1123-1126.
Nieder, A. & E.K. Miller. 2004. A parieto-frontal network for visual numerical information in the monkey. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 7457-7462.
Ditz, H.M. & A. Nieder. 2015. Neurons selective to the number of visual items in the corvid songbird endbrain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112: 7827-7832.
Ocklenburg, S. & O. Güntürkün. 2012. Hemispheric asymmetries: the comparative view. Front. Psychol. 3: 5.
Weidner, C., J. Repérant, D. Miceli, et al. 1985. An anatomical study of ipsilateral retinal projections in the quail using radioautographic, horseradish peroxidase, fluorescence and degeneration techniques. Brain Res. 340: 99-108.
Hardy, O., N. Leresche & D. Jassik-Gerschenfeld. 1984. Postsynaptic potentials in neurons of the pigeon's optic tectum in response to afferent stimulation from the retina and other visual structures: an intracellular study. Brain Res. 311: 65-74.
Robert, F. & M. Cuénod. 1969. Electrophysiology of the intertectal commissures in the pigeon I. Analysis of the pathways. Exp. Brain Res. 9: 116-122.
Theiss, M.P.H., B. Hellmann & O. Güntürkün. 2003. The architecture of an inhibitory sidepath within the avian tectofugal system. Neuroreport 14: 879-882.
Zeier, H.J. & H.J. Karten. 1973. Connections of the anterior commissure in the pigeon (Columba livia). J. Comp. Neurol. 150: 201-216.
Deng, C. & L.J. Rogers. 1998. Bilaterally projecting neurons in the two visual pathways of chicks. Brain Res. 794: 281-290.
Regolin, L. 2006. The case of the line-bisection: when both humans and chickens wander left. Cortex 42: 101-103.
Rugani, R., L. Regolin & G. Vallortigara. 2008. Discrimination of small numerosities in young chicks. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 34: 388-399.
Rugani, R., G. Vallortigara & L. Regolin. 2015. The use of proportion by young domestic chicks (Gallus gallus). Anim. Cogn. 18: 605-616.
Suzuki, K. & T. Kobayashi. 2000. Numerical competence in rats (Rattus norvegicus): Davis and Bradford (1986) extended. J. Comp. Psychol. 114: 73-85.
Davis, H. & S.A. Bradford. 2010. Counting behavior by rats in a simulated natural environment. Ethology 73: 265-280.
Csillag, A. & C.M. Montagnese. 2005. Thalamotelencephalic organization in birds. Brain Res. Bull. 66: 303-310.
Rogers, L.J. 1997. Early experiential effects on laterality: research on chicks has relevance to other species. Laterality 2: 199-219.
Rogers, L.J. 1986. Lateralization of learning in chicks. Adv. Stud. Behav. 16: 147-189.
Vallortigara, G. 2000. Comparative neuropsychology of the dual brain: a stroll through animals’ left and right perceptual worlds. Brain Lang. 73: 189-219.
Piazza, M. & E. Eger. 2016. Neural foundations and functional specificity of number representations. Neuropsychologia 83: 257-273.
Bugden, S., M.G. Woldorff & E.M. Brannon. 2019. Shared and distinct neural circuitry for nonsymbolic and symbolic double-digit addition. Hum. Brain Mapp. 40: 1328-1343.