Individually distinctive features facilitate numerical discrimination of sets of objects in domestic chicks.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 10 2020
02 10 2020
Historique:
received:
01
04
2020
accepted:
16
09
2020
entrez:
3
10
2020
pubmed:
4
10
2020
medline:
16
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Day-old domestic chicks approach the larger of two groups of identical objects, but in a 3 vs 4 comparison, their performance is random. Here we investigated whether adding individually distinctive features to each object would facilitate such discrimination. Chicks reared with 7 objects were presented with the operation 1 + 1 + 1 vs 1 + 1 + 1 + 1. When objects were all identical, chicks performed randomly, as expected (Experiment 1). In the remaining experiments, objects differed from one another due to additional features. Chicks succeeded when those features were differently oriented segments (Experiment 2) but failed when the features were arranged to depict individually different face-like displays (Experiment 3). Discrimination was restored if the face-like stimuli were presented upside-down, disrupting global processing (Experiment 4). Our results support the claim that numerical discrimination in 3 vs 4 comparison benefits from the presence of distinctive features that enhance object individuation due to individual processing. Interestingly, when the distinctive features are arranged into upright face-like displays, the process is susceptible to global over local interference due to configural processing. This study was aimed at assessing whether individual object processing affects numerical discrimination. We hypothesise that in humans similar strategies aimed at improving performance at the non-symbolic level may have positive effects on symbolic mathematical abilities.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33009471
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-73431-3
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-73431-3
pmc: PMC7532216
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
16408Subventions
Organisme : Marie Curie
ID : 795242
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Spelke, E. S. Principles of object perception. Cogn. Sci. 14, 29–56 (1990).
doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1401_3
Spelke, E. S., Kestenbaum, R., Simons, D. J. & Wein, D. Spatiotemporal continuity, smoothness of motion and object identity in infancy. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 13, 113–142 (1995).
doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1995.tb00669.x
Scott, L. S. Face perception and perceptual expertise in adult and developmental populations. Oxford Handb Face Percept. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199559053.013.0011 (2011).
doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199559053.013.0011
Taubert, J., Wardle, S. G., Flessert, M., Leopold, D. A. & Ungerleider, L. G. Face pareidolia in the rhesus monkey. Curr. Biol. 27, 2505-2509.e2 (2017).
pubmed: 28803877
pmcid: 5584612
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.06.075
Dart, R. A. The waterworn Australopithecine Pebble of many faces from Makapansgat. S. Afr. J. Sci. 70, 167 (1974).
Maurer, D., Grand, R. L. & Mondloch, C. J. The many faces of configural processing. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6, 255–260 (2002).
pubmed: 12039607
doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4
Bushnell, I. W. R. Mother’s face recognition in newborn infants: Learning and memory. Infant Child Dev. 10, 67–74 (2001).
doi: 10.1002/icd.248
Morton, J. & Johnson, M. H. CONSPEC and CONLERN: A two-process theory of infant face recognition. Psychol. Rev. 98, 164–181 (1991).
pubmed: 2047512
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.164
Turati, C., Macchi Cassia, V. M., Simion, F. & Leo, I. Newborns’ face recognition: Role of inner and outer facial features. Child Dev. 77, 297–311 (2006).
pubmed: 16611173
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00871.x
Valenza, E., Simion, F., Macchi Cassia, V. M. & Umiltà, C. Face preference at birth. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 22, 892–903 (1996).
pubmed: 8756957
doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.22.4.892
pmcid: 8756957
Rosa-Salva, O., Regolin, L. & Vallortigara, G. Faces are special for newly hatched chicks: Evidence for inborn domain-specific mechanisms underlying spontaneous preferences for face-like stimuli. Dev. Sci. 13, 565–577 (2010).
pubmed: 20590721
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00914.x
pmcid: 20590721
Sugita, Y. Innate face processing. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 19, 39–44 (2009).
pubmed: 19339171
doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2009.03.001
pmcid: 19339171
Xu, F. Sortal concepts, object individuation, and language. Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.) 11, 400–406 (2007).
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.002
Rugani, R. Towards numerical cognition’s origin: Insights from day-old domestic chicks. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 373, 20160509 (2018).
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2016.0509
Dehaene, S. The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics, Rev. and Updated ed (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011).
Trick, L. M. & Pylyshyn, Z. W. Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision. Psychol. Rev. 101, 80–102 (1994).
pubmed: 8121961
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.80
pmcid: 8121961
Gallistel, C. R. & Gelman, R. Preverbal and verbal counting and computation. Cognition 44, 43–74 (1992).
pubmed: 1511586
doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(92)90050-R
Rugani, R., Fontanari, L., Simoni, E., Regolin, L. & Vallortigara, G. Arithmetic in newborn chicks. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 276, 2451–2460 (2009).
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.0044
Rugani, R., Cavazzana, A., Vallortigara, G. & Regolin, L. One, two, three, four, or is there something more? Numerical discrimination in day-old domestic chicks. Anim. Cogn. 16, 557–564 (2013).
pubmed: 23334508
doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0593-8
Rugani, R., Regolin, L. & Vallortigara, G. Summation of large numerousness by newborn chicks. Front. Psychol. 2, 179 (2011).
pubmed: 21941514
pmcid: 3171108
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00179
Rugani, R., Loconsole, M. & Regolin, L. A strategy to improve arithmetical performance in four day-old domestic chicks (Gallus gallus). Sci. Rep. 7, 1–7 (2017).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-13677-6
Feigenson, L. & Carey, S. Tracking individuals via object-files: Evidence from infants’ manual search. Dev. Sci. 6, 568–584 (2003).
doi: 10.1111/1467-7687.00313
Feigenson, L. & Carey, S. On the limits of infants’ quantification of small object arrays. Cognition 97, 295–313 (2005).
pubmed: 16260263
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.010
pmcid: 16260263
Feigenson, L., Carey, S. & Hauser, M. The representations underlying infants’ choice of more: object files versus analog magnitudes. Psychol. Sci. 13, 150–156 (2002).
pubmed: 11933999
doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00427
pmcid: 11933999
Feigenson, L. & Halberda, J. Conceptual knowledge increases infants’ memory capacity. PNAS 105, 9926–9930 (2008).
pubmed: 18626025
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0709884105
pmcid: 18626025
Moher, M., Tuerk, A. S. & Feigenson, L. Seven-month-old infants chunk items in memory. J. Exp. Child. Psychol. 112, 361–377 (2012).
pubmed: 22575845
pmcid: 3374031
doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.03.007
Rosenberg, R. D. & Feigenson, L. Infants hierarchically organize memory representations. Dev. Sci. 16, 610–621 (2013).
pubmed: 23786478
doi: 10.1111/desc.12055
pmcid: 23786478
Rugani, R., Regolin, L. & Vallortigara, G. Discrimination of small numerosities in young chicks. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 34, 388–399 (2008).
pubmed: 18665721
doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.34.3.388
pmcid: 18665721
Fontanari, L., Rugani, R., Regolin, L. & Vallortigara, G. Object individuation in 3-day-old chicks: Use of property and spatiotemporal information. Dev. Sci. 14, 1235–1244 (2011).
pubmed: 21884338
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01074.x
pmcid: 21884338
Vallortigara, G. & Andrew, R. J. Lateralization of response by chicks to change in a model partner. Anim. Behav. 41, 187–194 (1991).
doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80470-1
Endress, A. D. & Potter, M. C. Large capacity temporary visual memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143, 548–565 (2014).
pubmed: 23937181
doi: 10.1037/a0033934
Zosh, J. M. & Feigenson, L. Array heterogeneity prevents catastrophic forgetting in infants. Cognition 136, 365–380 (2015).
pubmed: 25543889
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.042
Versace, E., Ragusa, M. & Vallortigara, G. A transient time window for early predispositions in newborn chicks. Sci. Rep. 9, 18767 (2019).
pubmed: 31822755
pmcid: 6904448
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-55255-y
Zajonc, R. B., Wilson, W. R. & Rajecki, D. W. Affiliation and social discrimination produced by brief exposure in day-old domestic chicks. Anim. Behav. 23, 131–138 (1975).
pubmed: 1155813
doi: 10.1016/0003-3472(75)90059-7
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2013).
Bower, G. H. Perceptual groups as coding units in immediate memory. Psychonom. Sci. 27, 217–219 (1972).
doi: 10.3758/BF03328942
Chase, W. G. & Simon, H. A. Perception in chess. Cogn. Psychol. 4, 55–81 (1973).
doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2
Ericcson, K. A., Chase, W. G. & Faloon, S. Acquisition of a memory skill. Science 208, 1181–1182 (1980).
pubmed: 7375930
doi: 10.1126/science.7375930
Mathy, F. & Feldman, J. What’s magic about magic numbers? Chunking and data compression in short-term memory. Cognition 122, 346–362 (2012).
pubmed: 22176752
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.003
Deng, C. & Rogers, L. J. Social recognition and approach in the chick: Lateralization and effect of visual experience. Anim. Behav. 63, 697–706 (2002).
doi: 10.1006/anbe.2001.1942
Chiandetti, C., Pecchia, T., Patt, F. & Vallortigara, G. Visual hierarchical processing and lateralization of cognitive functions through domestic chicks’ eyes. PLoS One 9, e84435 (2014).
pubmed: 24404163
pmcid: 3880297
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084435
Rosa-Salva, O., Rugani, R., Cavazzana, A., Regolin, L. & Vallortigara, G. Perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion in four-day-old domestic chicks (Gallus gallus). Anim. Cogn. 16, 895–906 (2013).
pubmed: 23572064
doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0622-2
Simion, F., Regolin, L. & Bulf, H. A predisposition for biological motion in the newborn baby. PNAS 105, 809–813 (2008).
pubmed: 18174333
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0707021105
Troje, N. F. & Westhoff, C. The inversion effect in biological motion perception: Evidence for a “Life Detector”?. Curr. Biol. 16, 821–824 (2006).
pubmed: 16631591
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.03.022
Vallortigara, G. & Regolin, L. Gravity bias in the interpretation of biological motion by inexperienced chicks. Curr. Biol. 16, 279280 (2006).
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.03.052
Hyde, D. C. & Spelke, E. S. Neural signatures of number processing in human infants: Evidence for two core systems underlying numerical cognition. Dev. Sci. 14, 360–371 (2011).
pubmed: 21399717
pmcid: 3050652
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00987.x
Leslie, A. M., Xu, F., Tremoulet, P. D. & Scholl, B. J. Indexing and the object concept: Developing ‘what’ and ‘where’ systems. Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.) 2, 10–18 (1998).
doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(97)01113-3
Fontanari, L., Rugani, R., Regolin, L. & Vallortigara, G. Use of kind information for object individuation in young domestic chicks. Anim. Cogn. 17, 925–935 (2014).
pubmed: 24368707
doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0725-9
Brannon, E. M. Number knows no bounds. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 279–281 (2003).
pubmed: 12860181
doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00137-2
Jordan, K. E., Suanda, S. H. & Brannon, E. M. Intersensory redundancy accelerates preverbal numerical competence. Cognition 108, 210–221 (2008).
pubmed: 18226807
pmcid: 2768652
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.001
Vallortigara, G., Regolin, L. & Marconato, F. Visually inexperienced chicks exhibit spontaneous preference for biological motion patterns. PLoS Biol. 3, e208 (2005).
pubmed: 15934787
pmcid: 1150290
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030208
Mascalzoni, E., Regolin, L. & Vallortigara, G. Innate sensitivity for self-propelled causal agency in newly hatched chicks. PNAS 107, 4483–4485 (2010).
pubmed: 20160095
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908792107
pmcid: 20160095
Rosa-Salva, O., Grassi, M., Lorenzi, E., Regolin, L. & Vallortigara, G. Spontaneous preference for visual cues of animacy in naïve domestic chicks: The case of speed changes. Cognition 157, 49–60 (2016).
pubmed: 27592411
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.014
pmcid: 27592411
Di Giorgio, E. et al. Filial responses as predisposed and learned preferences: Early attachment in chicks and babies. Behav. Brain Res. 325, 90–104 (2017).
pubmed: 27616345
doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2016.09.018
pmcid: 27616345
Regolin, L., Rugani, R., Stancher, G. & Vallortigara, G. Spontaneous discrimination of possible and impossible objects by newly hatched chicks. Biol. Lett. 7, 654–657 (2011).
pubmed: 21429912
pmcid: 3169041
doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0051
Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G. & Regolin, L. Numerical abstraction in young domestic chicks (Gallus gallus). PLoS One 8, e65262 (2013).
pubmed: 23776457
pmcid: 3679104
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065262
Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G. & Regolin, L. From small to large: Numerical discrimination by young domestic chicks (Gallus gallus). J. Comp. Psychol. 128, 163–171 (2014).
pubmed: 24188620
doi: 10.1037/a0034513
pmcid: 24188620
DeWind, N. K., Adams, G. K., Platt, M. L. & Brannon, E. M. Modeling the approximate number system to quantify the contribution of visual stimulus features. Cognition 142, 247–265 (2015).
pubmed: 26056747
pmcid: 4831213
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.016
Cordes, S., Gelman, R., Gallistel, C. R. & Whalen, J. Variability signatures distinguish verbal from nonverbal counting for both large and small numbers. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 8, 698–707 (2001).
pubmed: 11848588
doi: 10.3758/BF03196206
pmcid: 11848588
Cantlon, J. F. & Brannon, E. M. Basic math in monkeys and college students. PLoS Biol. 5, e328 (2007).
pubmed: 18092890
pmcid: 2140091
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050328
Cantlon, J. F. How evolution constrains human numerical concepts. Child Dev. Perspect. 12, 65–71 (2017).
pubmed: 30705691
pmcid: 6349390
doi: 10.1111/cdep.12264
Starr, A., Libertus, M. E. & Brannon, E. M. Number sense in infancy predicts mathematical abilities in childhood. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 18116–18120 (2013).
pubmed: 24145427
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1302751110
pmcid: 24145427
Duncan, G. J. et al. School readiness and later achievement. Dev. Psychol. 43, 1428–1446 (2007).
pubmed: 18020822
doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428
pmcid: 18020822
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C. & Locuniak, M. N. Early math matters: Kindergarten number competence and later mathematics outcomes. Dev. Psychol. 45, 850–867 (2009).
pubmed: 19413436
pmcid: 2782699
doi: 10.1037/a0014939
Reyna, V. F., Nelson, W. L., Han, P. K. & Dieckmann, N. F. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol. Bull. 135, 943–973 (2009).
pubmed: 19883143
pmcid: 2844786
doi: 10.1037/a0017327
Geary, D. C. & van Marle, K. Young children’s core symbolic and nonsymbolic quantitative knowledge in the prediction of later mathematics achievement. Dev. Psychol. 52, 2130–2144 (2016).
pubmed: 27736101
doi: 10.1037/dev0000214
pmcid: 27736101
Park, J. & Brannon, E. M. Training the approximate number system improves math proficiency. Psychol. Sci. 24, 2013–2019 (2013).
pubmed: 23921769
pmcid: 3797151
doi: 10.1177/0956797613482944
Szkudlarek, E. & Brannon, E. M. Approximate arithmetic training improves informal math performance in low achieving preschoolers. Front. Psychol. 9, 20 (2018).
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00606
De Smedt, B., Noel, M.-P., Gilmore, C. & Ansari, D. How do symbolic and non-symbolic numerical magnitude processing skills relate to individual differences in children’s mathematical skills? A review of evidence from brain and behavior. (2013).
Champely, S. pwr: Basic Functions for Power Analysis. (2018).
Salzen, E. A., Lily, R. E. & McKeown, J. R. Colour preference and imprinting in domestic chicks. Anim. Behav. 19, 542–547 (1971).
doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(71)80109-4
Goodwin, E. B. & Hess, E. H. Innate visual form preferences in the imprinting behavior of hatchling chicks. Behaviour 34, 238–254 (1969).
pubmed: 5351696
doi: 10.1163/156853969X00134
Regolin, L., Rugani, R., Pagni, P. & Vallortigara, G. Delayed search for social and nonsocial goals by young domestic chicks, Gallus gallus domesticus. Anim. Behav. 70, 855–864 (2005).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.01.014
Rugani, R., Regolin, L. & Vallortigara, G. Imprinted numbers: Newborn chicks’ sensitivity to number vs continuous extent of objects they have been reared with. Dev. Sci. 13, 790–797 (2010).
pubmed: 20712745
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00936.x
Farroni, T., Valenza, E., Simion, F. & Umiltà, C. Configural processing at birth: Evidence for perceptual organisation. Perception 29, 355–372 (2000).
pubmed: 10889944
Turati, C. & Simion, F. Newborns’ recognition of changing and unchanging aspects of schematic faces. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 83, 239–261 (2002).
pubmed: 12470960
doi: 10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00148-0
Simion, F., Farroni, T., Macchi Cassia, V. M., Turati, C. & Barba, B. D. Newborns’ local processing in schematic facelike configurations. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 20, 465–478 (2002).
doi: 10.1348/026151002760390800
Sugita, Y. Face perception in monkeys reared with no exposure to faces. PNAS 105, 394–398 (2008).
pubmed: 18172214
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0706079105