↓ Skip to main content

Perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion in four-day-old domestic chicks (Gallus gallus)

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
Title
Perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion in four-day-old domestic chicks (Gallus gallus)
Published in
Animal Cognition, April 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10071-013-0622-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

O. Rosa Salva, R. Rugani, A. Cavazzana, L. Regolin, G. Vallortigara

Abstract

In the Ebbinghaus size illusion, a central circle surrounded by small circles (inducers) appears bigger than an identical one surrounded by large inducers. Previous studies have failed to demonstrate sensitivity to this illusion in pigeons and baboons, leading to the conclusion that avian species (possibly also nonhuman primates) might lack the neural substrate necessary to perceive the Ebbinghaus illusion in a human-like fashion. Such a substrate may have been only recently evolved in the primate lineage. Here, we show that this illusion is perceived by 4-day-old domestic chicks. During rearing, chicks learnt, according to an observational-learning paradigm, to find food in proximity either of a big or of a small circle. Subjects were then tested with Ebbinghaus stimuli: two identical circles, one surrounded by larger and the other by smaller inducers. The percentage of approaches to the perceptually bigger target in animals reinforced on the bigger circle (and vice versa for the other group) was computed. Over four experiments, we demonstrated that chicks are reliably affected by the illusory display. Subjects reinforced on the small target choose the configuration with big inducers, in which the central target appears perceptually smaller; the opposite is true for subjects reinforced on the big target. This result has important implications for the evolutionary history of the neural substrate involved in the perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 3%
Japan 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 60 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 20%
Student > Bachelor 13 20%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 15%
Neuroscience 9 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 12 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 24 February 2021.
All research outputs
#895,876
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#220
of 1,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,097
of 199,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
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 199,511 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.