Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34591878›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Approach direction and accuracy, but not response times, show spatial-numerical association in chicks.

Rosa Rugani, Lucia Regolin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Rosa RuganiDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5294-6306
Lucia RegolinDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chicks trained to identify a target item in a sagittally-oriented series of identical items show a higher accuracy for the target on the left, rather than that on the right, at test when the series was rotated by 90°. Such bias seems to be due to a right hemispheric dominance in visuospatial tasks. Up to now, the bias was highlighted by looking at accuracy, the measure mostly used in non-human studies to detect spatial numerical association, SNA. In the present study, processing by each hemisphere was assessed by scoring three variables: accuracy, response times and direction of approach. Domestic chicks were tested under monocular vision conditions, as in the avian brain input to each eye is mostly processed by the contralateral hemisphere. Four-day-old chicks learnt to peck at the 4th element in a sagittal series of 10 identical elements. At test, when facing a series oriented fronto-parallel, birds confined their responses to the visible hemifield, with high accuracy for the 4th element. The first element in the series was also highly selected, suggesting an anchoring strategy to start the proto-counting at one end of the series. In the left monocular condition, chicks approached the series starting from the left, and in the right monocular condition, they started from the right. Both hemispheres appear to exploit the same strategy, scanning the series from the most lateral element in the clear hemifield. Remarkably, there was no effect in the response times: equal latency was scored for correct or incorrect and for left vs. right responses. Overall, these data indicate that the measures implying a direction of choice, accuracy and direction of approach, and not velocity, i.e., response times, can highlight SNA in this paradigm. We discuss the relevance of the selected measures to unveil SNA.

Indexed as

AnimalsBehavior, AnimalChickensFunctional LateralityMaleReaction TimeSpace PerceptionSpatial LearningVision, Monocular

Identifiers

PMID34591878
PMCPMC8483340

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.