ArticleiScience2023
Here I am, why don't you answer me? Sensitivity to social responsiveness in domestic chicks.
Article in iScience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reversed sound-shape association in tortoises (Testudo marginata).Animal cognition · 2026Article
- Enrichment with Hermetia illucens live larvae in a cage-free system: effects on welfare and egg production and quality in laying hens of two genotypes.Poultry science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Newborn domestic chicks shortly exposed to a conspecific learn to recognize and prefer it over unfamiliar individuals. We assessed whether lack of physical contact or social feedback during familiarization affects affiliative preference, hypothesizing a crucial role of social responsiveness. Four-day-old chicks were tested for their preference between a familiar and an unfamiliar chick. In Exp. 1, we replicated the well-known preference for the familiar individual, even when (Exp. 2) a transparent glass prevented haptic interaction during familiarization. No preference was scored in Exp. 3, using a one-way glass, i.e., the subject could never be seen by its cagemate. The development of preferences toward a familiar but socially unresponsive cagemate was assessed by testing chicks twice (Exp. 4). While behaving at chance on day 2, birds showed a preference for the unfamiliar individual on day 4 of life. Our results highlight the importance of social interaction already in the first stages of life, irrespective of familiarity.
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.