Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27851773›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Naïve Chicks Prefer Hollow Objects.

Elisabetta Versace, Jana Schill, Andrea Maria Nencini, Giorgio Vallortigara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A Neural Network Model With Gap Junction for Topological Detection.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Elisabetta VersaceCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7674-3383
Jana SchillCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy.
Andrea Maria NenciniCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy.
Giorgio VallortigaraCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biological predispositions influence approach and avoid responses from the time of birth or hatching. Neonates of species that require parental care (e.g. human babies and chicks of the domestic fowl) are attracted by stimuli associated with animate social partners, such as face-like configurations, biological motion and self-propulsion. The property of being filled is used as a cue of animacy by 8-month-old human infants but it is not known whether this reflects the effect of previous experience. We used chicks of the domestic fowl (Gallus gallus) to investigate whether the property of being filled vs. hollow elicits spontaneous or learned preferences. To this aim we tested preferences of naïve and imprinted chicks for hollow and closed cylinders. Contrary to our expectations, we documented an unlearned attraction for hollow stimuli. The preference for hollow stimuli decreased when chicks were imprinted on filled stimuli but did not increase when chicks were imprinted on hollow stimuli, suggesting that hollowness is not crucial to determine affiliative responses for imprinting objects. When chicks were imprinted on occluded stimuli that could be either filled or hollow, the preference for hollow stimuli emerged again, showing that imprinting does not disrupt the spontaneous preference for hollow objects. Further experiments revealed that hollow objects were mainly attractive by means of depth cues such as darker innards, more than as places to hide or as objects with high contrast. Our findings point to predisposed preferences for hollow objects, and suggest that early predispositions might be driven by factors different from animacy cues.

Indexed as

Photic StimulationAnimalsChickensImprinting, PsychologicalVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID27851773
PMCPMC5112871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.