↓ Skip to main content

An automated controlled-rearing method for studying the origins of movement recognition in newly hatched chicks

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
An automated controlled-rearing method for studying the origins of movement recognition in newly hatched chicks
Published in
Animal Cognition, February 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10071-015-0839-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason G. Goldman, Justin N. Wood

Abstract

Movement recognition is central to visual perception and cognition, yet its origins are poorly understood. Can newborn animals encode and recognize movements at the onset of vision, or does this ability have a protracted developmental trajectory? To address this question, we used an automated controlled-rearing method with a newborn animal model: the domestic chick (Gallus gallus). This automated method made it possible to collect over 150 test trials from each subject. In their first week of life, chicks were raised in controlled-rearing chambers that contained a single virtual agent who repeatedly performed three movements. In their second week of life, we tested whether chicks could recognize the agent's movements. Chicks successfully recognized both individual movements and sequences of movements. Further, chicks successfully encoded the order that movements occurred within a sequence. These results indicate that newborn visual systems can encode and recognize movements at the onset of vision and argue for an increased focus on automated controlled-rearing methods for studying the emergence of perceptual and cognitive abilities.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 29%
Student > Bachelor 3 21%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 36%
Psychology 3 21%
Computer Science 2 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 7%
Neuroscience 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 June 2015.
All research outputs
#7,337,849
of 12,222,940 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#681
of 902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,325
of 274,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#66
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,222,940 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 902 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.2. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,005 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.