Animal Cognition

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 162–170 | Cite as

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

  • Lucia Regolin
  • Fabio Marconato
  • Giorgio Vallortigara
Original Article

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.

Keywords

Lateralisation Hemispheric difference Amodal completion Domestic chick 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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

References

  1. Andrew RJ (1991) The chick in experiment: techniques and tests. General. In: Andrew RJ (ed) Neural and behavioural plasticity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 6–11Google Scholar
  2. Cerella J (1980) The pigeon’s analysis of pictures. Pattern Recogn 12:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 11:459–466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Deng C, Rogers LJ (1997) Differential contributions of the two visual pathways to functional lateralization in chicks. Behav Brain Res 87:173–182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Deng C, Rogers LJ (1998a) Organisation of the tectorotundal and SP/IPS-rotundal projections in the chick. J Comp Neurol 394:171–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Deng C, Rogers LJ (1998b) Bilaterally projecting neurons in the two visual pathways of chicks. Brain Res 794:281–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Deng C, Rogers LJ (2002a) Social recognition and approach in the chick: lateralization and effect of visual experience. Anim Behav 63:697–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 206–246Google Scholar
  9. Deruelle C, Barbet I, Dépy D, Fagot J (2000) Perception of partly occluded figures by baboons (Papio papio). Perception 39:1483–1497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dharmaretnam M, Andrew RJ (1994) Age- and stimulus-specific effects on the use of right and left eyes by the domestic chick. Anim Behav 48:1395–1406Google Scholar
  11. Di Pietro NT, Wasserman EA, Young ME (2002) Effects of occlusion on pigeon’s visual object recognition. Perception 31:1299–1312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Forkman B (1998) Hens use occlusion to judge depth in a two-dimensional picture. Perception 27:861–867PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Forkman B, Vallortigara G (1999) Minimization of modal contours: an essential cross-species strategy in disambiguating relative depth. Anim Cogn 2:181–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fujita K (2001) Perceptual completion in rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) and pigeons (Columba livia). Percept Psychophys 63:115–125PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Funk MS (1996) Development of object permanence in the New Zealand parakeet (Cyanoramphus auriceps). Anim Learn Behav 24:375–383Google Scholar
  16. Gross Y, Franko I, Lewin L (1978) Effects of voluntary eye movements on hemispheric activity and choice of cognitive mode. Neuropsychologia 17:653–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grossberg S, Mingolla E (1985) Neural dynamics of form perception: boundary completion, illusory figures, and neon colour spreading. Psychol Rev 92:173–211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Güntürkün O (1997) Avian visual lateralization: a review. Neuroreport 8:3–11Google Scholar
  19. Güntürkün O, Hahmann U (1999) Functional subdivisions of the ascending visual pathways in the pigeon. Behav Brain Res 98:193–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hellmann B, Güntürkün O (1999) Visual field specific heterogeneity within the tectofugal projection of the pigeon. Eur J Neurosci 11:1–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hodos W, Macko KA, Bessette BB (1984) Near-field acuity changes after visual system lesions in pigeons. II. Telencephalon. Behav Brain Res 13:15–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kanizsa G (1979) Organization in vision. Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Kanizsa G, Renzi P, Conte S, Compostela C, Guerani L (1993) Amodal completion in mouse vision. Perception 22:713–721PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lea SEG, Slater AM, Ryan CME (1996) Perception of object unity in chicks: a comparison with human infant. Infant Behav Dev 19:501–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Michotte A (1963) The perception of causality. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Michotte A, Thinés G, Crabbé G (1964) Les complements amodaux des structures perceptives. Publications Universitaires de Louvain, LouvainGoogle Scholar
  27. Osada Y, Schiller PH (1994) Can monkeys see objects under condition of transparency and occlusion? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 35:1664Google Scholar
  28. 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 18:97–108Google Scholar
  29. 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 112:13–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pollok B, Prior H, Güntürkün O (2000) Development of object permanence in food-storing magpies (Pica pica). J Comp Psychol 114:148–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Prior H, Güntürkün O (1999) Patterns of visual lateralization in pigeons: seeing what is there and beyond. Perception Suppl 28:22Google Scholar
  32. Rashid N, Andrew RJ (1989) Right hemisphere advantages for topographical orientation in the domestic chick. Neuropsychologia 27:937–948CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Regolin L, Vallortigara G (1995) Perception of partly occluded objects by young chicks. Percept Psychophys 57:971–976Google Scholar
  34. Rogers LJ (1980) Lateralization in the avian brain. Bird Behav 2:1–12Google Scholar
  35. Rogers LJ (1995) The development of brain and behaviour in the chicken. CAB International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Rogers LJ (1996) Behavioral, structural and neurochemical asymmetries in the avian brain: a model system for studying visual development and processing. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 20:487–503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Rogers LJ (2002) Advantages and disadvantages of lateralization. In: Rogers LJ Andrew RJ (eds) Comparative vertebrate lateralization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 126–153Google Scholar
  38. Rogers LJ, Deng C (1999) Light experience and lateralization of the two visual pathways in the chick. Behav Brain Res 98:277–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sato A, Kanazawa S, Fujita K (1997) Perception of objects unity in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Jpn Psychol Res 39:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sekuler AB, Lee JAJ, Shettleworth SJ (1996) Pigeons do not complete partly occluded figures. Perception 25:1109–1120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Shipley TF, Kellman PJ (1992) Strength of visual interpolation depends on the ratio of physically specified to total edge length. Percept Psychophys 52:97–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Tommasi L, Vallortigara G (2001) Encoding of geometric and landmark information in the left and right hemispheres of the avian brain. Behav Neurosci 115:602–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 112:119–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Vallortigara G (1992) Right hemisphere advantage for social recognition in the chick. Neuropsychologia 30:761–768CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Vallortigara G (2000) Comparative neuropsychology of the dual brain: a stroll through left and right animals’ perceptual worlds. Brain Lang 73:189–219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 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)Google Scholar
  47. Vallortigara G, Andrew RJ (1991) Lateralization of response by chicks to change a model partner. Anim Behav 41:187–194Google Scholar
  48. Vallortigara G, Andrew RJ (1994) Differential involvement of right and left hemisphere in individual recognition in the domestic chick. Behav Process 33:41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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 74:135–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Vallortigara G, Rogers LJ, Bisazza A (1999) Possible evolutionary origins of cognitive brain lateralization. Brain Res Rev 30:164–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 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 11:29–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Watanabe S, Ito Y (1991) Discrimination of individuals in pigeons. Bird Behav 9:20–29Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucia Regolin
    • 1
  • Fabio Marconato
    • 1
  • Giorgio Vallortigara
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of General PsychologyUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Psychology and B.R.A.I.N. Center for NeuroscienceUniversity of TriesteTriesteItaly

Personalised recommendations