Skip to main content
Log in

Hemispheric differences in the recognition of partly occluded objects by newly hatched domestic chicks (Gallus gallus)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Animal Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Domestic chicks are capable of perceiving as a whole objects partly concealed by occluders (“amodal completion”). In previous studies chicks were imprinted on a certain configuration and at test they were required to choose between two alternative versions of it. Using the same paradigm we now investigated the presence of hemispheric differences in amodal completion by testing newborn chicks with one eye temporarily patched. Separate groups of newly hatched chicks were imprinted binocularly: (1) on a square partly occluded by a superimposed bar, (2) on a whole or (3) on an amputated version of the square. At test, in monocular conditions, each chick was presented with a free choice between a complete and an amputated square. In the crucial condition 1, chicks tested with only their left eye in use chose the complete square (like binocular chicks would do); right-eyed chicks, in contrast, tended to choose the amputated square. Similar results were obtained in another group of chicks imprinted binocularly onto a cross (either occluded or amputated in its central part) and required to choose between a complete or an amputated cross. Left-eyed and binocular chicks chose the complete cross, whereas right-eyed chicks did not choose the amputated cross significantly more often. These findings suggest that neural structures fed by the left eye (mainly located in the right hemisphere) are, in the chick, more inclined to a “global” analysis of visual scenes, whereas those fed by the right eye seem to be more inclined to a “featural” analysis of visual scenes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrew RJ (1991) The chick in experiment: techniques and tests. General. In: Andrew RJ (ed) Neural and behavioural plasticity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 6–11

  • Cerella J (1980) The pigeon’s analysis of pictures. Pattern Recogn 12:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corballis PM, Fendrich R, Shapley RM, Gazzaniga M (1999) Illusory contour perception and amodal boundary completion: evidence of a dissociation following callosotomy. J Cogn Neurosci 11:459–466

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deng C, Rogers LJ (1997) Differential contributions of the two visual pathways to functional lateralization in chicks. Behav Brain Res 87:173–182

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deng C, Rogers LJ (1998a) Organisation of the tectorotundal and SP/IPS-rotundal projections in the chick. J Comp Neurol 394:171–185

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deng C, Rogers LJ (1998b) Bilaterally projecting neurons in the two visual pathways of chicks. Brain Res 794:281–290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deng C, Rogers LJ (2002a) Social recognition and approach in the chick: lateralization and effect of visual experience. Anim Behav 63:697–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng C, Rogers LJ (2002b) Factors affecting the development of lateralization in chicks. In: Rogers LJ, Andrew RJ (eds) Comparative vertebrate lateralization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 206–246

  • Deruelle C, Barbet I, Dépy D, Fagot J (2000) Perception of partly occluded figures by baboons (Papio papio). Perception 39:1483–1497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dharmaretnam M, Andrew RJ (1994) Age- and stimulus-specific effects on the use of right and left eyes by the domestic chick. Anim Behav 48:1395–1406

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Pietro NT, Wasserman EA, Young ME (2002) Effects of occlusion on pigeon’s visual object recognition. Perception 31:1299–1312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forkman B (1998) Hens use occlusion to judge depth in a two-dimensional picture. Perception 27:861–867

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forkman B, Vallortigara G (1999) Minimization of modal contours: an essential cross-species strategy in disambiguating relative depth. Anim Cogn 2:181–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujita K (2001) Perceptual completion in rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) and pigeons (Columba livia). Percept Psychophys 63:115–125

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Funk MS (1996) Development of object permanence in the New Zealand parakeet (Cyanoramphus auriceps). Anim Learn Behav 24:375–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross Y, Franko I, Lewin L (1978) Effects of voluntary eye movements on hemispheric activity and choice of cognitive mode. Neuropsychologia 17:653–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossberg S, Mingolla E (1985) Neural dynamics of form perception: boundary completion, illusory figures, and neon colour spreading. Psychol Rev 92:173–211

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Güntürkün O (1997) Avian visual lateralization: a review. Neuroreport 8:3–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Güntürkün O, Hahmann U (1999) Functional subdivisions of the ascending visual pathways in the pigeon. Behav Brain Res 98:193–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann B, Güntürkün O (1999) Visual field specific heterogeneity within the tectofugal projection of the pigeon. Eur J Neurosci 11:1–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hodos W, Macko KA, Bessette BB (1984) Near-field acuity changes after visual system lesions in pigeons. II. Telencephalon. Behav Brain Res 13:15–30

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kanizsa G (1979) Organization in vision. Praeger, New York

  • Kanizsa G, Renzi P, Conte S, Compostela C, Guerani L (1993) Amodal completion in mouse vision. Perception 22:713–721

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lea SEG, Slater AM, Ryan CME (1996) Perception of object unity in chicks: a comparison with human infant. Infant Behav Dev 19:501–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michotte A (1963) The perception of causality. Basic Books, New York

  • Michotte A, Thinés G, Crabbé G (1964) Les complements amodaux des structures perceptives. Publications Universitaires de Louvain, Louvain

  • Osada Y, Schiller PH (1994) Can monkeys see objects under condition of transparency and occlusion? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 35:1664

    Google Scholar 

  • Pepperberg IM, Funk MS (1990) Object permanence in four species of psittacine birds: an African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus), an Illiger mini macaw (Ara maracana), a parakeet (Melopsittacus undulatus), and a cockatiel (Nymphicus hollandicus). Anim Learn Behav 18:97–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Plowright CMS, Reid S, Kilian T (1998) Finding hidden food: behavior on visible displacement tasks by mynahs (Gracula religiosa) and pigeons (Columba livia). J Comp Psychol 112:13–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollok B, Prior H, Güntürkün O (2000) Development of object permanence in food-storing magpies (Pica pica). J Comp Psychol 114:148–157

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prior H, Güntürkün O (1999) Patterns of visual lateralization in pigeons: seeing what is there and beyond. Perception Suppl 28:22

    Google Scholar 

  • Rashid N, Andrew RJ (1989) Right hemisphere advantages for topographical orientation in the domestic chick. Neuropsychologia 27:937–948

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Regolin L, Vallortigara G (1995) Perception of partly occluded objects by young chicks. Percept Psychophys 57:971–976

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers LJ (1980) Lateralization in the avian brain. Bird Behav 2:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers LJ (1995) The development of brain and behaviour in the chicken. CAB International, Wallingford

  • Rogers LJ (1996) Behavioral, structural and neurochemical asymmetries in the avian brain: a model system for studying visual development and processing. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 20:487–503

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers LJ (2002) Advantages and disadvantages of lateralization. In: Rogers LJ Andrew RJ (eds) Comparative vertebrate lateralization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 126–153

  • Rogers LJ, Deng C (1999) Light experience and lateralization of the two visual pathways in the chick. Behav Brain Res 98:277–287

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sato A, Kanazawa S, Fujita K (1997) Perception of objects unity in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Jpn Psychol Res 39:191–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sekuler AB, Lee JAJ, Shettleworth SJ (1996) Pigeons do not complete partly occluded figures. Perception 25:1109–1120

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shipley TF, Kellman PJ (1992) Strength of visual interpolation depends on the ratio of physically specified to total edge length. Percept Psychophys 52:97–106

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tommasi L, Vallortigara G (2001) Encoding of geometric and landmark information in the left and right hemispheres of the avian brain. Behav Neurosci 115:602–613

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tommasi L, Andrew RJ, Vallortigara G (2000) Eye use in search is determined by the nature of the task in the domestic chick. Behav Brain Res 112:119–126

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vallortigara G (1992) Right hemisphere advantage for social recognition in the chick. Neuropsychologia 30:761–768

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vallortigara G (2000) Comparative neuropsychology of the dual brain: a stroll through left and right animals’ perceptual worlds. Brain Lang 73:189–219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vallortigara G (2004) Comparative vertebrate cognition: are primates superior to non-primates. In: Rogers LJ, Kaplan G (eds) Vertebrate comparative cognition: are primates special? Plenum, New York, (in press)

  • Vallortigara G, Andrew RJ (1991) Lateralization of response by chicks to change a model partner. Anim Behav 41:187–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallortigara G, Andrew RJ (1994) Differential involvement of right and left hemisphere in individual recognition in the domestic chick. Behav Process 33:41–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallortigara G, Regolin L, Bortolomiol G, Tommasi L (1996) Lateral asymmetries due to preference in eye use during visual discrimination learning in chicks. Behav Brain Res 74:135–143

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vallortigara G, Rogers LJ, Bisazza A (1999) Possible evolutionary origins of cognitive brain lateralization. Brain Res Rev 30:164–175

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vallortigara G, Cozzutti C, Tommasi L, Rogers LJ (2001) How birds use their eyes: opposite left-right specialisation for the lateral and frontal visual hemifield in the domestic chick. Curr Biol 11:29–33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watanabe S, Ito Y (1991) Discrimination of individuals in pigeons. Bird Behav 9:20–29

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The experiments comply with the current Italian and European Community laws for the ethical treatment of animals.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucia Regolin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Regolin, L., Marconato, F. & Vallortigara, G. Hemispheric differences in the recognition of partly occluded objects by newly hatched domestic chicks (Gallus gallus). Anim Cogn 7, 162–170 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0208-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0208-0

Keywords

Navigation