ArticleiScience2024
Innate sensitivity to face-to-face biological motion.
Article in iScience, 2024. 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.
- The naive brain detects face-to-face biological motion.iScience · 2026Article
- Article
- Spontaneous Encoding of Event Roles in Hominids.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025Article
- Understanding biological motion through the lens of animate motion processing.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- Noncortical coding of biological motion in newborn chicks' brain.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
- Face processing in animal models: implications for autism spectrum disorder.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sensitivity to face-to-face stimuli configurations, which likely indicates interaction, seems to appear early in infants' development, and recently a preference for face-to-face (vs. other spatial configurations) has been shown to occur in macaque monkeys. It is unknown, however, whether such a preference is acquired through experience or as an evolutionary-given biological predisposition. Here, we exploited a precocial social animal, the domestic chick, as a model system to address this question. Visually naive chicks were tested for their spontaneous preferences for face-to-face vs. back-to-back hen dyads of point-light displays depicting biological motion. We found that female chicks have a spontaneous preference for the facing interactive configuration. Males showed no preference, as expected due to the well-known low social motivation of males in this highly polygynous species. These findings support the idea of an innate and sex-dependent predisposition toward social and interacting stimuli in a vertebrate brain such as that of chicks.
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.