Animal Cognition

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 723–731 | Cite as

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

  • Jason G. Goldman
  • Justin N. WoodEmail author
Original Paper


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.


Controlled rearing Movement recognition Newborn Chicken Gallus gallus Automation 



We thank Samantha M. W. Wood for assistance on this manuscript and Aditya Prasad, Tony Bouz, and Lynette Tan for their assistance building the controlled-rearing chambers. This research was funded by National Science Foundation CAREER Grant BCS-1351892 to J. N. W. The experiments were approved by The University of Southern California Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MOV 3760 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MOV 2310 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (MOV 3000 kb)


  1. Bateson P (ed) (2000) What must be known in order to understand imprinting? The evolution of cognition. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertenthal BI, Proffitt DR, Cutting JE (1984) Infant sensitivity to figural coherence in biomechanical motions. J Exp Child Psychol 37:213–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Buttelmann D, Carpenter M, Call J, Tomasello M (2007) Enculturated chimpanzees imitate rationally. Dev Sci 10:F31–F38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Davey MG, Tickle C (2007) The chicken as a model for embryonic development. Cytogenet Genome Res 117:231–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Endress A, Wood JN (2011) From movements to actions: two mechanisms for learning action sequences. Cogn Psychol 63:141–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Espinosa JS, Stryker MP (2012) Development and plasticity of the primary visual cortex. Neuron 75:230–249CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Evans CS, Marler P (1991) On the use of video images as social stimuli in birds: audience effects on alarm calling. Anim Behav 41:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans CS, Evans L, Marler P (1993) On the meaning of alarm calls: functional reference in an avian vocal system. Anim Behav 46:23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fox R, Mcdaniel C (1982) The perception of biological motion by human infants. Science 218:486–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gavornik JP, Bear MF (2014) Learned spatiotemporal sequence recognition and prediction in primary visual cortex. Nat Neurosci 17:732–737CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Grandin T, Johnson C (2005) Animals in translation. Scribner, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Heider F (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horn G (2004) Pathways of the past: the imprint of memory. Nat Rev Neurosci 5:108–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Jarvis ED et al (2005) Avian brains and a new understanding of vertebrate brain evolution. Nat Rev Neurosci 6(2):151–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Karten H (2013) Neocortical evolution: neuronal circuits arise independently of lamination. Curr Bio 23:R12–R15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kruschke JK (2010) What to believe: Bayesian methods for data analysis. Trends Cogn Sci 14:293–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Li N, DiCarlo JJ (2008) Unsupervised natural experience rapidly alters invariant object representation in visual cortex. Science 321:1502–1507CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. McQuoid LM, Galef BG Jr (1993) Social stimuli influencing feeding behaviour of Burmese red jungle fowl: a video analysis. Anim Behav 46:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Newtson D, Engquist G (1976) The perceptual organization of ongoing behavior. J Exp Soc Psychol 12:436–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shanahan M, Bingman VP, Shimizu T, Wild M, Gunturkun O (2013) Large-scale network organization in the avian forebrain: a connectivity matrix and theoretical analysis. Front Comput Neurosci 7(89):1–17Google Scholar
  21. Simion F, Regolin L, Bulf H (2008) A predisposition for biological motion in the newborn baby. PNAS 105:809–813CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith CL, Evans CS (2008) Multimodal signaling in fowl, Gallus gallus. J Exp Biol 211:2052–2057CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Stokes AW, Williams HW (1972) Courtship feeding in Gallinaceous birds. Auk 89:177–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Suchak M, de Waal FBM (2012) Monkeys benefit from reciprocity without the cognitive burden. PNAS. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1213173109
  25. Urgolites ZJ, Wood JN (2013) Visual long-term memory stores high-fidelity representations of observed actions. Psychol Sci 24:403–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Vallortigara G, Regolin L (2006) Gravity bias in the interpretation of biological motion by inexperienced chicks. Curr Biol 16:R279–R280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Vallortigara G, Regolin L, Marconato F (2005) Visually inexperienced chicks exhibit spontaneous preference for biological motion patterns. PLoS Biol 3:1312–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Warneken F, Tomasello M (2006) Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science 311:1301–1303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Wood JN (2007) Visual working memory for observed actions. J Exp Psychol Gen 136:639–652CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wood JN (2013) Newborn chickens generate invariant object representations at the onset of visual object experience. PNAS 110:14000–14005CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Wood JN (2014a) Newly hatched chicks solve the visual binding problem. Psychol Sci 25:1475–1481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Wood JN (2014b) Characterizing the information content of a newly hatched chick’s first visual object representation. Dev Sci. doi: 10.1111/desc.12198 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wood JN, Glynn DD, Philips B, Hauser MD (2007) The perception of rational, goal-directed action in non-human primates. Science 317:1402–1405CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Woodward AL (1998) Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor’s reach. Cognition 69:1–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Woodward AL, Sommerville JA (2000) Twelve-month-old infants interpret action in context. Psychol Sci 11:73–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations