Abstract
From the early stages of life, learning the regularities associated with specific objects is crucial for making sense of experiences. Through filial imprinting, young precocial birds quickly learn the features of their social partners by mere exposure. It is not clear though to what extent chicks can extract abstract patterns of the visual and acoustic stimuli present in the imprinting object, and how they combine them. To investigate this issue, we exposed chicks (Gallus gallus) to three days of visual and acoustic imprinting, using either patterns with two identical items or patterns with two different items, presented visually, acoustically or in both modalities. Next, chicks were given a choice between the familiar and the unfamiliar pattern, present in either the multimodal, visual or acoustic modality. The responses to the novel stimuli were affected by their imprinting experience, and the effect was stronger for chicks imprinted with multimodal patterns than for the other groups. Interestingly, males and females adopted a different strategy, with males more attracted by unfamiliar patterns and females more attracted by familiar patterns. Our data show that chicks can generalize abstract patterns by mere exposure through filial imprinting and that multimodal stimulation is more effective than unimodal stimulation for pattern learning.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Making sense of visual and auditory stimuli requires a grasp of the structure of the environment. Many studies have revealed a range of specialized perceptual and learning mechanisms than can help human adults, infants and non-human animals to detect patterns from structured visual and auditory input (Endress et al. 2009; Fitch and Friederici 2012; reviewed in Dehaene et al. 2015), ranging from identification of repetitions (Marcus et al. 1999) and use of predictors (Versace et al. 2008; Meyer and Olson 2011) to extraction of positional regularities (Endress et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2014), statistical regularities (Saffran et al. 1996; Fiser and Aslin 2001, 2002; Kirkham et al. 2002; Gentner et al. 2006; Sonnweber et al. 2015) and abstract patterns (Marcus et al. 1999; Stobbe et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2015; Spierings and ten Cate 2016). Although regularities can be defined in abstract terms (e.g. AnBn, or XYX, see, for instance, Fitch and Friederici 2012), with no explicit reference to the modality used to extract or produce specific stimuli, it has been shown that stimuli in one modality can affect the processing in another modality (e.g. Shimojo and Shams 2001; Ernst and Bulthoff 2004; Seitz et al. 2007; Robinson and Sloutsky 2013). Little is known, though, on the effects on pattern learning when stimuli combine different modalities.
The investigation of rule learning capacities in non-human species is often based on the use of operant conditioning paradigms (ten Cate and Okanoya 2012). Although these paradigms can provide insight in what animals might be able to learn about various patterned strings of stimuli, about their learning strategies and what aspects of the stimuli are important, spontaneous behaviours can reveal which capacities are available in naturalistic conditions (ten Cate and Okanoya 2012). Newly hatched birds of precocial species learn by mere exposure the features of the conspicuous objects they are exposed to, a phenomenon called “filial imprinting”, that occurs without explicit reinforcement (reviewed in Bateson 1966; Bolhuis 1991; Horn 2004; McCabe 2013). After a few minutes spent with the imprinting stimulus, chicks show affiliative responses, such as approach, towards it (Bateson and Jaeckel 1976; van Kampen and Bolhuis 1991). In the wild, filial imprinting enables chicks to keep proximity with close kin, thus increasing survival prospects of the youngsters. In the laboratory, chicks imprint on visual (Horn and McCabe 1984; Wood 2013) and acoustic stimuli (van Kampen and Bolhuis 1991; Miklósi et al. 1996), showing approach responses even to artificial imprinting objects presented on computer screens (Mascalzoni et al. 2010; Wood 2013, 2014). This means that they are sensitive to both the visual and the acoustic stimulation in their environment during imprinting.
The capacity to generalize imprinting responses enables young precocial birds to recognize social partners in spite of their heterogeneity and changes in appearance (e.g. mother hen and siblings seen from different angles and during development; Bateson 1973): imprinting in fact extends to stimuli presented from novel points of view (Wood 2013), and to objects with the same shape but different colour compared to the imprinting object (Bolhuis and Horn 1992). The preference for slightly novel stimuli has been viewed as a learning strategy that helps youngsters to learn the different features of social partners (e.g. the front and back view of the mother hen are very different indeed; Bateson 1973, 1979). Although the natural imprinting stimulus will be a single object, there is increasing evidence suggesting that the mechanism of imprinting might be able to go beyond the perceptual features of a single object to those of a grouped configuration of elements: Versace et al. (2006) showed that chicks imprinted on coloured cylinders that followed the (AB)n, (A)n(B)n and (A(BB)A) patterns could recognize the familiar pattern irrespectively of its colour. In this test, chicks preferentially approached unfamiliar patterns, confirming the preference for novel stimuli that has been documented at specific times after the initial imprinting exposure (see, for instance, Bateson and Jaeckel 1976; Vallortigara and Andrew 1994). The ability of young chicks to generalize from the stimuli used during the exposure to a similar arrangement of novel ones was also demonstrated in a recent conditioning experiment with young chicks (Santolin et al. 2016), suggesting that chicks are able to detect a relationship among a set of items. This was also shown for filial imprinting in another precocial species by Martinho and Kacelnik (2016), who showed that ducklings can recognize the XX (two identical items, with central symmetry) versus XY (two different items) patterns in visual items and generalize the pattern of their imprinting items to novel items following the same pattern. This suggests that these animals learned the abstract relation between two visual items.
In the present study, we used filial imprinting to examine the spontaneous capacity of chicks of the domestic fowl (Gallus gallus) to generalize the visual, acoustic and multimodal patterns XX and XY to novel objects. This may indicate an ability to learn an abstract pattern, i.e. a pattern independent of the particular stimuli by which it is instantiated. As the propensity for approaching unfamiliar social stimuli has been shown to be stronger in male than in female chicks in various tasks (reviewed in Vallortigara and Andrew 1991, 1994), we took sex differences into account.
We first exposed newly hatched chicks to stimuli that followed either the XX or XY pattern in the visual, acoustic or visual and acoustic modality. In the test phase, chicks were given a choice between novel stimuli in both patterns and we measured their preference for each of the patterns. Chicks showed significantly different approach responses towards the novel stimuli during the test, showing that they can use the imprinting pattern to evaluate novel items, with females preferring the familiar pattern and males preferring the unfamiliar pattern. Moreover, multimodal visual and acoustic stimuli were more effective than visual-only or acoustic-only stimuli.
Methods
Ethics statement
All experiments complied with the current Italian and European Community laws for the ethical treatment of animals and the experimental procedures were approved by the Ethical Committee of University of Trento and licensed by the Italian Health Ministry (permit number 1138/2015 PR).
Experimental design
To investigate the capacity for generalization of abstract XX (two identical items) and XY (two different items) patterns, we imprinted chicks on either XX or XY stimuli and then tested chicks’ approach responses towards novel XX and XY stimuli. Significant differences in the preference for novel XX and XY stimuli between chicks imprinted on different patterns show the capacity to generalize the information gained during imprinting. To understand the role of visual, acoustic and multimodally presented stimuli, the test stimuli were presented to different experimental groups either visually, acoustically or multimodally. Given that male and female chicks had been previously shown to exhibit different preferences for familiar and unfamiliar stimuli, we analysed each sex separately. Each test was replicated with two sets of stimuli that differed only with respect to the items used to instantiate them.
Materials
Subjects
This study was conducted with 388 newly hatched chicks of domestic fowl (Gallus gallus) of the Ross 308 strain (Aviagen). Table 1 shows how many males and females were tested in each condition. The eggs were collected from a commercial hatchery (Agricola Berica, Montegalda, Italy) and incubated at the University of Trento under controlled conditions at 37.7 °C and 40% humidity. Three days before hatching they were moved to a hatching chamber (37.7 °C and 60% humidity) in opaque individual boxes, where the chicks hatched in complete darkness. After hatching, food and water were available ad libitum.
Stimuli
An overview of the imprinting and test stimuli is presented in Table 2. The chicks were imprinted with an XX (two identical items) or with an XY (two different items) pattern. In the visual condition, chicks were imprinted with two patterns (e.g. V1V1 and V2V2) presented visually, while a single item (e.g. A7) was presented acoustically; in the acoustic condition, two patterns were presented acoustically (e.g. A1A1 and A2A2), while a single visual stimulus (V7) was presented on the monitor, and in the multimodal condition, two visual patterns (e.g. V1V1 and V2V2) and two acoustic patterns (A1A1 and A2A2) were presented simultaneously. In each condition, half of the chicks were imprinted with the XX pattern and half with the XY pattern. To avoid pseudo-replication, we repeated the experiments with two sets of stimuli (e.g. A1A1 and A2A2, A3A3 and A4A4).
Acoustic stimuli
Figure 1a shows spectrograms of the acoustic stimuli used. The acoustic stimuli were artificially created in Praat (version 6.0.16). In total, there were seven different acoustic stimuli; six were used to create the imprinting patterns (A1–A6) and one as the single imprinting sound for the visual condition (A7, Table 2). As shown in Fig. 1a, the six sounds for the patterns were created to differ in duration (between 122 and 180 ms), fundamental frequency, pitch contour and formant frequencies in order to make them easily distinguishable, but they were all played with the same amplitude of 75 dB. To create the XX and XY pattern, two sounds were concatenated with a 50-ms pause between them, and this created duplets ranging in duration between 300 and 400 ms. During playback, there were always three duplets presented in 6 s, spaced equally in time. This acoustic playback scheme matched with the visual playback in which the stimulus took 6 s to cross the screen. The A7 sound used in the visual condition was a natural recording of a chick vocalization with a duration of 104 ms and an amplitude of 75 dB. This sound was also presented three times in 6 s, spaced equally over time. All sounds used in this study were within the hearing range of a newly hatched chick.
Visual stimuli
Figure 1b shows the visual stimuli used. The seven visual stimuli were built in MATLAB and were created to be as distinct as possible. All stimuli fitted in a 4.5-cm square, but they varied in shape, colour, number of corners, amount of area filled and presence/absence of central symmetry, presence of round/sharp edges. The XX and XY configurations (as well as the V7 stimulus used in the acoustic condition) moved across the screen horizontally (30 cm), taking 12 s to run an entire cycle from right to left and back.
Imprinting set up
The imprinting procedure started on the day that the chick hatched and lasted three days. The imprinting set up consisted of a black box (30 × 30 × 40 cm, w × l × h) with a monitor (17″, 60 Hz) mounted on the front wall and a speaker (Logitech, Z150) above the box, both playing the imprinting stimuli.
Test set up
After imprinting, the chicks were tested in the running wheel set up shown in Fig. 2. The apparatus was 150 cm long, 46 cm wide, 45 cm high, with a running wheel (32 cm diameter, 13 cm large, covered with 1 cm of dark opaque foam on both sides) in the middle of the apparatus. On each side of the wheel was a monitor and speaker identical to those used during imprinting. The speaker was set to 75 dB amplitude. On both sides, monitor and speaker were located 60 cm far from the centre of the apparatus. An automated system recorded the centimetres run on each direction showing this information on a display (see Versace et al. 2017).
Procedure
Imprinting procedure
We individually exposed newly hatched chicks to stimuli that followed the XX or XY pattern. The imprinting lasted three days. In each imprinting cage, the monitor and speaker played the stimuli for 14 h a day continuously for two days and for 8 h a day continuously, followed by 6 h with alternations of 5 min of stimuli playback and 10 min of darkness and silence on the third day. This allowed the chicks to familiarize with the disappearance of the imprinting stimuli. During the remaining 10 h of the day, the screen was black and no sound was played.
Test procedure
At the beginning of the test, each chick was placed in the running wheel facing sideways. The test lasted 20 min. The XX pattern was presented on one side and the XY pattern on the opposite side, and the sides were switched between chicks. Depending on the imprinting modality tested, the test stimuli were novel for the visual pattern, or the acoustic one or both, as summarized in Table 2. The experimenter monitored the distance run in the wheel.
Data analysis
We expected to observe a significant difference in approach towards novel XX and XY patterns between chicks imprinted on XX and XY if chicks could learn the imprinting pattern and generalize it to novel stimuli. To check for this effect, for each chick we computed the XX preference index as
We performed an ANOVA on the XX preference index with imprinting pattern (XX, XY), modality (multimodal, visual, acoustic), sex (male, female) and set (one, two) as between-subjects factors. Post hoc two-tailed t tests were used to contrast levels of significant effects and interactions. The data set supporting this article has been uploaded as Supplementary material.
Results
Overall preferences
We examined preferences for the XX versus XY pattern in chicks imprinted on XX or XY patterns through a linear model, expecting a difference in XX preference between chicks imprinted on XX versus XY patterns. As independent variables, we used imprinting pattern (XX or XY), modality tested (acoustic, visual, multimodal), sex (male or female) and set of stimuli (one or two). There were no outliers or data points with high leverage, and the model had a good linear fit. Table 3 shows the complete set of results. No significant main effect was present in the analysis, but we observed a trend for modality tested: F 2,364 = 2.603, P = 0.075. We observed only two significant interactions: imprinting pattern × sex (F 1,364 = 20.497, P < 0.001) and imprinting pattern × modality tested × sex (F 2,364 = 3.292, P = 0.038), as shown in Fig. 3. Since the factor set of stimuli was not significant as main effect, nor in any interaction, we can conclude that the observed effects are independent from the stimuli used. Based on the evidence of sex effects in interaction, and on well-documented differences in affiliative responses between male and female chicks (see, for instance, Vallortigara 1992; Vallortigara and Andrew 1994), we ran further separate analyses for males and females.
Female preferences
Females showed a significant main effect of the imprinting pattern (F 1,193 = 21.675, P < 0.001), no significant main effect of modality tested (F 2,193 = 0.242, P = 0.785) and a significant interaction imprinting pattern × modality tested (F 2,193 = 5.390, P = 0.005).
In all tested modalities, females imprinted on XX had a higher tendency to approach the XX (familiar) stimulus compared to females imprinted on XY. Using post hoc two-tailed t tests for independent samples, we found a significant effect only in the multimodal test and a trend for the visual modality (multimodal: t 67 = 5.865, P < 0.001; visual: t 56.75=1.954, P = 0.055; acoustic: t 67.63 = 0.580, P = 0.563).
These results show that, after multimodal imprinting on XX versus on XY, females have significantly stronger preference for the familiar pattern, whereas when testing females with unimodally presented patterns, the preferences for familiar patterns are much weaker. These findings suggest a combined effect between modalities in the representation of the imprinting object.
Male preferences
Males showed a significant main effect of the imprinting pattern (F 1,183 = 4.51, P = 0.035), a significant main effect of modality tested (F 2,183 = 4.511, P = 0.012) and no significant interaction imprinting pattern × modality tested (F 2,183 = 0.441, P = 0.644).
In all tested modalities, males imprinted on XX had a higher tendency to approach the XY (unfamiliar) stimulus compared to males imprinted on XY. Using post hoc two-tailed t tests for independent samples, we found a significant effect only in the multimodal test (multimodal: t 53.34 = −2.211, P = 0.031; visual: t 63.64=−0.565, P = 0.574; acoustic: t 62.55 = −1.216, P = 0.229). These results show that, after multimodal imprinting on XX versus imprinting on XY, males have significantly stronger preference for the unfamiliar pattern, whereas when testing males with patterns that differ only in one modality (either acoustic or visual), the preferences for the unfamiliar pattern are much weaker. Similarly to what observed in females, these results suggest an effect between modalities in the representation of the imprinting object.
Discussion
From the early stages of life, learning the regularities associated with specific objects is crucial for building an effective representation of the environment. Through the mechanism of filial imprinting, mere exposure is sufficient for newly hatched precocial birds to learn the features of their social partners and use this information to recognize them. For this reason, filial imprinting has been widely used as a system to investigate memory of familiar objects (Bateson 1966; Bolhuis 1991; Horn 2004; reviewed in McCabe 2013). Mounting evidence, though, suggests that the imprinting mechanisms might be powerful enough to extract abstract features of conspicuous objects, such as their visual configurations: Versace et al. (2006) showed that chicks imprinted on coloured cylinders arranged according to the (AB)n, (A)n(B)n and (A(BB)A) patterns could discriminate familiar/unfamiliar patterns irrespectively of the hue of stimuli, and Martinho and Kacelnik (2016) showed that imprinted ducklings can discriminate between the XX versus XY configurations of objects that differ in colour or shape from the imprinting objects—a task that could be solved both based on the presence of identical/different items and on the presence/absence of symmetry. In our study, we extend this line of research to auditory and multimodal information, investigating the capacity of chicks imprinted on either XX or XY patterns to discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar patterns in a generalization context. Both increased and reduced preference for familiar patterns show the ability to process and discriminate the patterns.
Our findings confirm chicks’ capacity for extracting the abstract XX/XY relation presented in the imprinting stimuli to novel objects, in the absence of explicit training.
Moreover, we observe that consistent visual and acoustic stimuli presented multimodally might have a synergistic effect, since multimodal patterns elicited a stronger differentiation between XX and XY stimuli than unimodal patterns. To better understand the representation of the pattern arising from imprinting, further research should clarify the way in which conflicting and conforming multimodal information contribute to determining approach responses. Rather than overloading the cognitive system or producing interference, presenting novel stimuli in both visual and acoustic modality enhanced the capacity of chicks to discriminate between patterns. This result extends the findings on recognition of imprinting objects in avian species (ten Cate 1989; van Kampen and Bolhuis 1991, 1993 and references therein).
Interestingly, while both male and female chicks could discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar stimuli, they showed opposite preferences with respect to the familiarity of the objects. Both preferences for familiar and unfamiliar stimuli indicate the capacity to discriminate between the patterns. Consistent with the well-known effect of preference for slightly novel stimuli observed in chicks (Jackson and Bateson 1974; Bateson 1979; Versace et al. 2006) especially in males (Vallortigara and Andrew 1994), male chicks consistently approached unfamiliar patterns more than familiar patterns, while females had the opposite preference. Early differences in affiliative responses between male and female chicks have been previously documented in field and laboratory conditions (e.g. Workman and Andrew 1989; Vallortigara et al. 1990; Vallortigara 1992; Vallortigara and Andrew 1994), as differences in social and aggressive motivation between the sexes.
Chicks’ spontaneous capacities to abstract pattern generalization suggest that this method might be suitable for investigating the computational capacities used to process abstract and statistical regularities, complementing conditioning paradigms. The comparative investigation of spontaneous responses can shed light on the computational abilities used in the wild to process and extract regularities.
References
Bateson PPG (1966) The characteristics and context of imprinting. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 41:177–211
Bateson PPG (1973) Preferences for familiarity and novelty: a model for the simultaneous development of both. J Theor Biol 41:249–259. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(73)90117-3
Bateson PPG (1979) How do sensitive periods arise and what are they for? Anim Learn Behav 7:259–262. doi:10.1016/0003-3472(79)90184-2
Bateson PPG, Jaeckel JB (1976) Chicks’ preferences for familiar and novel conspicuous objects after different periods of exposure. Anim Behav 24:386–390
Bolhuis JJ (1991) Mechanisms of avian imprinting: a review. Biol Rev 66:303–345
Bolhuis JJ, Horn G (1992) Generalization of learned preferences in filial imprinting. Anim Behav 44:185–187. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80773-0
Chen J, van Rossum D, ten Cate C (2014) Artificial grammar learning in zebra finches and human adults: XYX versus XXY. Anim Cogn 18:151–164. doi:10.1007/s10071-014-0786-4
Dehaene S, Meyniel F, Wacongne C et al (2015) The neural representation of sequences: from transition probabilities to algebraic patterns and linguistic trees. Neuron 88:2–19. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.019
Endress AD, Nespor M, Mehler J (2009) Perceptual and memory constraints on language acquisition. Trends Cogn Sci 13:348–353. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.05.005
Endress AD, Carden S, Versace E, Hauser MD (2010) The apes’ edge: positional learning in chimpanzees and humans. Anim Cogn 13:483–495. doi:10.1007/s10071-009-0299-8
Ernst MO, Bulthoff HH (2004) Merging the senses into a robust percept. Trends Cogn Sci 8:162–169. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.002
Fiser J, Aslin RN (2001) Unsupervised statistical learning of higher-order spatial structures from visual scenes. Psychol Sci 12:499–504. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00392
Fiser J, Aslin RN (2002) Statistical learning of new visual feature combinations by infants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:15822–15826. doi:10.1073/pnas.232472899
Fitch WT, Friederici AD (2012) Artificial grammar learning meets formal language theory: an overview. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 367(1598):1933–1955. doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0103
Gentner TQ, Fenn KM, Margoliash D, Nusbaum HC (2006) Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature 440:1204–1207. doi:10.1038/nature04675
Horn G (2004) Pathways of the past: the imprint of memory. Nat Rev Neurosci 5:108–120. doi:10.1038/nrn1324
Horn G, McCabe BJ (1984) Predispositions and preferences. Effects on imprinting of lesions to the chick brain. Anim Behav 32:288–292. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(84)80349-8
Jackson PS, Bateson PPG (1974) Imprinting and exploration of slight novelty in chicks. Nature 251:609–610. doi:10.1038/251609a0
Kirkham NZ, Slemmer JA, Johnson SP (2002) Visual statistical learning in infancy: evidence for a domain general learning mechanism. Cognition 83:4–5. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00004-5
Marcus GF, Vijayan S, Bandi Rao S, Vishton PM (1999) Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science 283:77–80
Martinho A, Kacelnik A (2016) Ducklings imprint on the relational concept of “same or different”. Science 80(353):286–288. doi:10.1126/science.aaf4247
Mascalzoni E, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2010) Innate sensitivity for self-propelled causal agency in newly hatched chicks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:4483–4485. doi:10.1073/pnas.0908792107
McCabe BJ (2013) Imprinting. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 4:375–390. doi:10.1002/wcs.1231
Meyer T, Olson CR (2011) Statistical learning of visual transitions in monkey inferotemporal cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:19401–19406. doi:10.1073/pnas.1112895108
Miklósi A, Andrew RJ, Dharmaretnam M (1996) Auditory lateralisation: shifts in ear use during attachment in the domestic chick. Laterality 1:215–224. doi:10.1080/713754242
Robinson CW, Sloutsky VM (2013) When audition dominates vision evidence from cross-modal statistical learning. Exp Psychol 60:113–121. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000177
Saffran JR, Aslin RN, Newport EL (1996) Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274:1926–1928
Santolin C, Rosa-Salva O, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2016) Generalization of visual regularities in newly hatched chicks (Gallus gallus). Anim Cogn 19(5):1007–1017. doi:10.1007/s10071-016-1005-2
Seitz AR, Kim R, Van Wassenhove V, Shams L (2007) Simultaneous and independent acquisition of multisensory and unisensory associations. Perception 36:1445–1453. doi:10.1068/p5843
Shimojo S, Shams L (2001) Sensory modalities are not separate modalities: plasticity and interactions. Curr Opin Neurobiol 11:505–509
Sonnweber R, Ravignani A, Fitch WT (2015) Non-adjacent visual dependency learning in chimpanzees. Anim Cogn 18:733–745. doi:10.1007/s10071-015-0840-x
Spierings MJ, ten Cate C (2016) Budgerigars and zebra finches differ in how they generalize in an artificial grammar learning experiment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113(27):E3977–E3984. doi:10.1073/pnas.1600483113
Stobbe N, Westphal-Fitch G, Aust U, Fitch WT (2012) Visual artificial grammar learning: comparative research on humans, kea (Nestor notabilis) and pigeons (Columba livia). Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 367:1995–2006. doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0096
ten Cate C (1989) Stimulus movement, hen behaviour and filial imprinting in Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Ethology 82:287–306
ten Cate C, Okanoya K (2012) Revisiting the syntactic abilities of non-human animals: natural vocalizations and artificial grammar learning. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 367:1984–1994. doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0055
Vallortigara G (1992) Affiliation and aggression as related to gender in domestic chicks (Gallus gallus). J Comp Psychol 106:53–57
Vallortigara G, Andrew RJ (1991) Lateralization of response by chicks to change in a model partner. Anim Behav 41:187–194
Vallortigara G, Andrew RJ (1994) Differential involvement of right and left hemisphere in individual recognition in the domestic chick. Behav Process 33:41–57. doi:10.1016/0376-6357(94)90059-0
Vallortigara G, Cailotto M, Zanforlin M (1990) Sex differences in social reinstatement motivation of the domestic chick (Gallus gallus) revealed by runway tests with social and nonsocial reinforcement. J Comp Psychol 104:361–367
van Kampen HS, Bolhuis JJ (1991) Auditory learning and filial imprinting in the chick. Behaviour 117:303–319
van Kampen HS, Bolhuis JJ (1993) Interaction betweem auditory and visual learning during imprinting. Anim Behav 45:623–625
Versace E, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2006) Emergence of grammar as revealed by visual imprinting in newly-hatched chicks. The evolution of language. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference, Rome, 12–15 April 2006
Versace E, Endress AD, Hauser MD (2008) Pattern recognition mediates flexible timing of vocalizations in nonhuman primates: experiments with cottontop tamarins. Anim Behav 76:1885–1892. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.08.015
Versace E, Fracasso I, Baldan G, Dalle Zotte A, Vallortigara G (2017) Newborn chicks show inherited variability in early social predispositions for hen-like stimuli. Sci Rep 7:40296. doi:10.1038/srep40296
Wang L, Uhrig L, Jarraya B, Dehaene S (2015) Representation of numerical and sequential patterns in macaque and human brains. Curr Biol 25:1966–1974. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.06.035
Wood JN (2013) Newborn chickens generate invariant object representations at the onset of visual object experience. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:14000–14005. doi:10.1073/pnas.1308246110
Wood JN (2014) Newly hatched chicks solve the visual binding problem. Psychol Sci 25:1475–1481. doi:10.1177/0956797614528955
Workman L, Andrew RJ (1989) Simultaneous changes in behaviour and in lateralization during the development of male and female domestic chicks. Anim Behav 38:596–605
Acknowledgements
GV was supported by a grant from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013): Advanced Grant ERC PREMESOR G.A. Number 295517. MJS was supported by the NWO-GW, Grant No. 360.70.452. We thank Francesca Businaro, Matteo Gregori, Lucrezia Lonardo and Sara Peruffo for help in data collection and Stefano Tessari and Antonio Zandonai for support with the laboratory equipment.
Authors’ contributions
EV conceived and designed the study, participated in data collection, analysed the data and drafted the manuscript; MS designed the study, prepared the stimuli, participated in data collection and helped drafting the manuscript; MC prepared the stimuli and helped drafting the manuscript; CTC conceived and designed the study and helped in drafting the manuscript; GV conceived and designed the study and helped in drafting the manuscript. All authors gave final approval for publication.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
We have no competing interests.
Additional information
Elisabetta Versace and Michelle J. Spierings have contributed equally to this work.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Versace, E., Spierings, M.J., Caffini, M. et al. Spontaneous generalization of abstract multimodal patterns in young domestic chicks. Anim Cogn 20, 521–529 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1079-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1079-5