Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38989452›Full record

ArticleiScience2024

Spontaneous biases enhance generalization in the neonate brain.

Shuge Wang, Vera Vasas, Laura Freeland, Daniel Osorio, Elisabetta Versace

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Crossmodal Pitch-Luminance Association in Tortoises.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Shuge WangSchool of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Vera VasasSchool of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Laura FreelandSchool of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Daniel OsorioSchool of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Elisabetta VersaceSchool of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inductive generalization is adaptive in novel contexts for both biological and artificial intelligence. Spontaneous generalization in inexperienced animals raises questions on whether predispositions (evolutionarily acquired biases, or priors) enable generalization from sparse data, without reinforcement. We exposed neonate chicks to an artificial social partner of a specific color, and then looked at generalization on the red-yellow or blue-green ranges. Generalization was inconsistent with an unbiased model. Biases included asymmetrical generalization gradients, some preferences for unfamiliar stimuli, different speed of learning, faster learning for colors infrequent in the natural spectrum. Generalization was consistent with a Bayesian model that incorporates predispositions as initial preferences and treats the learning process as an update of predispositions. Newborn chicks are evolutionarily prepared for generalization, via biases independent from experience, reinforcement, or supervision. To solve the problem of induction, biological and artificial intelligence can use biases tuned to infrequent stimuli, such as the red and blue colors.

Indexed as

computing methodologydevelopmental biologyneuroscience

Identifiers

PMID38989452
PMCPMC11233965

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.