Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Mark Johnson (2005)
Subcortical face processingNature Reviews Neuroscience, 6
C. Turati, E. Valenza, I. Leo, F. Simion (2005)
Three-month-olds' visual preference for faces and its underlying visual processing mechanisms.Journal of experimental child psychology, 90 3
W. Hodos, J. Erichsen (1990)
Lower-field myopia in birds: An adaptation that keeps the ground in focusVision Research, 30
N. Troje, C. Westhoff (2006)
The Inversion Effect in Biological Motion Perception: Evidence for a “Life Detector”?Current Biology, 16
H. Rodman, James SKELLYt, Charles Gross (1991)
Stimulus selectivity and state dependence of activity in inferior temporal cortex of infant monkeys.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 88 17
C. Nelson (2001)
The Development and Neural Bases of Face RecognitionInfant and Child Development, 10
I. Bushneil, F. Sai, J. Mullin (1989)
Neonatal recognition of the mother's faceBritish Journal of Development Psychology, 7
K. Kendrick (1991)
How the sheep's brain controls the visual recognition of animals and humans.Journal of animal science, 69 12
F. Simion, E. Valenza, V. Cassia, C. Turati, C. Umilta (2002)
Newborns’ preference for up–down asymmetrical configurationsDevelopmental Science, 5
M. Myowa-Yamakoshi, M. Tomonaga (2001)
Perceiving Eye Gaze in an Infanct Gibbon (Hylobates agilis), 44
R. Crabtree (2006)
Chemistry: A catalytic knight's moveNature, 441
J. Morton, Mark Johnson (1991)
CONSPEC and CONLERN: a two-process theory of infant face recognition.Psychological review, 98 2
J. Kent (1987)
Experiments on the relationship between the hen and chick (Gallus gallus): the role of the auditory mode in recognition and the effects of maternal separationBehaviour, 102
F. Simion, T. Farroni, V. Cassia, C. Turati, B. Barba (2002)
Newborns' local processing in schematic facelike configurationsBritish Journal of Development Psychology, 20
K. Schmid, C. Wildsoet (1998)
Assessment of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in the chick using an optokinetic nystagmus paradigmVision Research, 38
G. Vallortigara, R. Andrew (1991)
Lateralization of response by chicks to change in a model partnerAnimal Behaviour, 41
N. Kanwisher (2000)
Domain specificity in face perceptionNature Neuroscience, 3
M. Bornstein, K. Ferdinandsen, C. Gross (1981)
Perception of symmetry in infancy.Developmental Psychology, 17
Johan Bolhuis, Mark Johnson, Gabriel Horn (1985)
Effects of early experience on the development of filial preferences in the domestic chick.Developmental psychobiology, 18 4
D. Perrett, J. Hietanen, M. Oram, P. Benson (1992)
Organization and functions of cells responsive to faces in the temporal cortex.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 335 1273
Mark Johnson, Johan Bolhuis, Gabriel Horn (1985)
Interaction between acquired preferences and developing predispositions during imprintingAnimal Behaviour, 33
J. Cherfas, Alison Scott (1981)
Impermanent reversal of fillial imprintingAnimal Behaviour, 29
Y. Sugita (2008)
Face perception in monkeys reared with no exposure to facesProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105
Mark Johnson, S. Dziurawiec, H. Ellis, J. Morton (1991)
Newborns' preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent declineCognition, 40
E. Valenza, F. Simion, V. Cassia, C. Umilta (1996)
Face preference at birth.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 22 4
Turati Turati (2004)
Why faces are not special to newborns: an alternative account of the face preferenceCurent Directions in Psychological Science, 13
K. Kendrick, K. Atkins, M. Hinton, K. Broad, C. Fabre-nys, B. Keverne (1995)
Facial and vocal discrimination in sheepAnimal Behaviour, 49
F. Simion, E. Valenza, C. Umilta, B. Barba (1998)
Preferential orienting to faces in newborns: a temporal-nasal asymmetry.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 24 5
Carolyn Goren, M. Sarty, P. Wu (1975)
Visual following and pattern discrimination of face-like stimuli by newborn infants.Pediatrics, 56 4
Cassia Macchi, C. Turati, F. Simion (2004)
Can a Nonspecific Bias Toward Top-Heavy Patterns Explain Newborns' Face Preference?Psychological Science, 15
C. Turati (2004)
Why Faces Are Not Special to NewbornsCurrent Directions in Psychological Science, 13
F. Simion, L. Regolin, H. Bulf (2008)
A predisposition for biological motion in the newborn babyProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105
Mark Johnson (2006)
Biological Motion: A Perceptual Life Detector?Current Biology, 16
M. Farah, C. Rabinowitz, G. Quinn, G. Liu (2000)
EARLY COMMITMENT OF NEURAL SUBSTRATES FOR FACE RECOGNITIONCognitive Neuropsychology, 17
T. Farroni, Mark Johnson, Enrica Menon, Luisa Zulian, D. Faraguna, G. Csibra (2005)
Newborns' preference for face-relevant stimuli: effects of contrast polarity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102 47
Johan Bolhuis, W. Trooster (1988)
Reversibility revisited: Stimulus-dependent stability of filial preference in the chickAnimal Behaviour, 36
Megan Easterbrook, B. Kisilevsky, S. Hains, D. Muir (1999)
Faceness or complexity: Evidence from newborn visual tracking of facelike stimuliInfant Behavior & Development, 22
V. Cassia, F. Simion, Carlo Umiltaa (2001)
Face preference at birth: the role of an orienting mechanismDevelopmental Science, 4
F. Simion, V. Cassia, C. Turati, E. Valenza (2001)
The origins of face perception: specific versus non‐specific mechanismsInfant and Child Development, 10
G. Walton, T.G.R. Bower (1993)
Newborns Form “Prototypes” in Less Than 1 MinutePsychological Science, 4
M. Tovée (1998)
Is Face Processing Special?Neuron, 21
C. Keating, Gregory Keating (1982)
Visual Scan Patterns of Rhesus Monkeys Viewing FacesPerception, 11
G. Vallortigara, L. Regolin (2006)
Gravity bias in the interpretation of biological motion by inexperienced chicksCurrent Biology, 16
C. Fisher, K. Ferdinandsen, M. Bornstein (1981)
The role of symmetry in infant form discrimination.Child development, 52 2
K. Kendrick, A. Costa, A. Leigh, M. Hinton, J. Peirce (2001)
Sheep don't forget a faceNature, 414
E. Jarvis, O. Güntürkün, L. Bruce, A. Csillag, H. Karten, W. Kuenzel, L. Medina, G. Paxinos, D. Perkel, Toru Shimizu, G. Striedter, J. Wild, G. Ball, Jennifer Dugas-Ford, S. Durand, Gerald Hough, S. Husband, L. Kubikova, Diane Lee, C. Mello, A. Powers, Connie Siang, T. Smulders, Kazuhiro Wada, S. White, Keiko Yamamoto, Jing Yu, A. Reiner, A. Butler (2005)
Avian brains and a new understanding of vertebrate brain evolutionNature Reviews Neuroscience, 6
C. Turati, F. Simion, Idanna Milani, C. Umilta (2002)
Newborns' preference for faces: what is crucial?Developmental psychology, 38 6
E. Salzen, C. Meyer (1967)
Imprinting: Reversal of a Preference established during the Critical PeriodNature, 215
C. Turati, Viola Cassia, F. Simion, I. Leo (2006)
Newborns' face recognition: role of inner and outer facial features.Child development, 77 2
G. Vallortigara, L. Regolin, Fabio Marconato (2005)
Visually Inexperienced Chicks Exhibit Spontaneous Preference for Biological Motion PatternsPLoS Biology, 3
Mark Johnson, Gabriel Horn (1988)
Development of filial preferences in dark-reared chicksAnimal Behaviour, 36
A. Tate, Hanno Fischer, A. Leigh, K. Kendrick (2006)
Behavioural and neurophysiological evidence for face identity and face emotion processing in animalsPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361
It is currently being debated whether human newborns’ preference for faces is due to an unlearned, domain‐specific and configural representation of the appearance of a face, or to general mechanisms, such as an up‐down bias (favouring top‐heavy stimuli, which have more elements in their upper part). Here we show that 2‐day‐old domestic chicks, visually naïve for the arrangement of inner facial features, spontaneously prefer face‐like, schematic, stimuli. This preference is maintained when the up‐down bias is controlled for (Experiment1) or when put in direct conflict with facedness (Experiment 4). In contrast, we found no evidence for the presence of an up‐down bias in chicks (Experiment 2). Moreover, our results indicate that the eye region of stimuli is crucial in determining the expression of spontaneous preferences for faces (Experiments 3 and 4).
Developmental Science – Wiley
Published: Jul 1, 2010
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.