ArticleScientific reports2020
No evidence of spontaneous preference for slowly moving objects in visually naïve chicks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Habituation with apparatus and group testing improves assessment of fish preferences.Journal of fish biology · 2025Article
- Life is in motion (through a chick's eye).Animal cognition · 2023Review
- Spontaneous preference for unpredictability in the temporal contingencies between agents' motion in naive domestic chicks.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Evolution and function of neurocognitive systems in non-human animals.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Statistical learning in domestic chicks is modulated by strain and sex.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- No evidence of spontaneous preference for slowly moving objects in visually naïve chicks.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been recently reported that young chicks that have received equal exposure to slowly- and fast-rotating objects showed a preference for slowly-rotating objects. This would suggest that visual experience with slowly moving objects is necessary for object recognition in newborns. I attempted to duplicate this finding in newborn chicks using a simple rotating blue cube. No significant preference was found. Using objects similar to the ones used in the previous study (digital embryos), I observed a strong and robust preference for the fast- (not for the slow-) rotating object. To clarify whether the discrepancies with the previous study could be due to the stimuli frame-frequency used (the chicks' visual system is characterized by high temporal resolution), I repeated the experiments by presenting the stimuli with a lower-frame frequency (from 120 fps to 24 fps). However, similar preferences for the fast-rotating objects were found, this time also for the rotating blue cube. These results suggest a preference for fast-rotating objects that is modulated by the shape and, in part, by the frame-frequency. It remains to be established whether the discrepancies between this study and the previous study can be explained by differences related to strains or artefacts due to the use of monitors with a low-refresh rate.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.