ArticleScientific reports2020
Individually distinctive features facilitate numerical discrimination of sets of objects in domestic 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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The Social Relevance of Numbers: Insights from Animal Studies.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Prenatal light exposure affects number sense and the mental number line in young domestic chicks.eLife · 2025Article
- Variability in cognitive strategies in a numerical discrimination task: individual and comparative insights from day-old domestic chicks (Gallus gallus).Journal of animal science · 2025Article
- Article
- Asymmetric number-space association leads to more efficient processing of congruent information in domestic chicks.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2023Article
- Processing Individually Distinctive Schematic-Faces Supports Proto-Arithmetical Counting in the Young Domestic Chicken.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Evolution and function of neurocognitive systems in non-human animals.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Response of male and female domestic chicks to change in the number (quantity) of imprinting objects.Learning & behavior · 2021Article
- The Prevalence of Integument Injuries and Associated Risk Factors Among Canadian Turkeys.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
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.