Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T19:19:58.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Objects and Space in an Avian Brain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2017

By
Giorgio Vallortigara  and
Cinzia Chiandetti
Edited by
Carel ten Cate  and
Susan D. Healy
Carel ten Cate
Affiliation:
Universiteit Leiden
Susan D. Healy
Affiliation:
University of St Andrews, Scotland
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Avian Cognition , pp. 141 - 162
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acerbo, M. J., Lazareva, O. F., McInnerney, J., Leiker, E., Wasserman, E. A. and Poremba, A. (2012). Figure-ground discrimination in the avian brain: the nucleus rotundus and its inhibitory complex. Vision Research, 70, 18–26.Google Scholar
Adachi, I. (2014). Spontaneous spatial mapping of learned sequence in chimpanzees: Evidence for a SNARC-like effect. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e90373.Google Scholar
Aguiar, A. and Baillargeon, R. (1999). 2.5-month-old infants’ reasoning about when objects should and should not be occluded. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 116–157.Google Scholar
Atoji, Y. and Wild, J. M. (2006). Anatomy of the avian hippocampal formation. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 17, 3–15.Google Scholar
Baillargeon, R. (1987). Object permanence in 3.5- and 4.5-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 23, 655–664.Google Scholar
Baillargeon, R. (2004). Infants’ physical world. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(3), 89–94.Google Scholar
Batty, E. R., Bloomfield, L. L., Spetch, M. L. and Sturdy, C. B. (2009). Comparing black-capped (Poecile atricapillus) and mountain chickadees (Poecile gambeli): Use of geometric and featural information in a spatial orientation task. Animal Cognition, 12, 633–641.Google Scholar
Bingman, V. P., Erichsen, J. T., Anderson, J. D., Good, M. and Pearce, J. M. (2006). Spared feature-structure discrimination but diminished salience of environmental geometry in hippocampal-lesioned homing pigeons (Columba livia). Behavioural Neuroscience, 120, 835–841.Google Scholar
Bird, C. D. and Emery, N. J. (2010). Rooks perceive support relations similar to six-month-old babies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277, 147–151.Google Scholar
Bjerknes, T. L., Moser, E. I. and Moser, M.-B. (2014). Representation of geometric borders in the developing rat. Neuron, 82, 71–78.Google Scholar
Bozzi, P. (1990). Fisica ingenua. Oscillazioni, piani inclinati e altre storie: studi di psicologia della percezione. Milano: Garzanti.Google Scholar
Brown, A., Spetch, M. L. and Hurd, P. L. (2007). Growing in circles: rearing environment alters spatial navigation in fish. Psychological Science, 18(7), 569–573.Google Scholar
Cacchione, T. and Krist, H. (2004). Recognizing impossible object relations: intuitions about support in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118, 140–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Call, J. (2007). Apes know that hidden objects can affect the orientation of other objects. Cognition, 105, 1–25.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A., McCloskey, M. and Green, B. (1981). Naïve beliefs in “sophisticated” subjects: Misconceptions about trajectories of objects. Cognition, 9, 117–123.Google Scholar
Cheng, K. (1986). A purely geometric module in the rat's spatial representation. Cognition, 23(2), 149–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, K. and Newcombe, N. S. (2005). Is there a geometric module for spatial orientation? Squaring theory and evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Chiandetti, C., Galliussi, J., Andrew, R. J. and Vallortigara, G. (2013). Early-light embryonic stimulation suggests a secound rounte, via gene activation, to cerebral lateralization in vertebrates. Scientific Reports, 3, 2701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiandetti, C., Pecchia, T., Patt, F., et al. (2014). Visual hierarchical processing and lateralization of cognitive functions through domestic chicks’ eyes. PLoS ONE, 9, e84435.Google Scholar
Chiandetti, C., Spelke, E. S. and Vallortigara, G. (2015). Inexperienced newborn chicks use geometry to spontaneously reorient to an artificial social partner. Developmental Science, 18(6), 972–978.Google Scholar
Chiandetti, C. and Vallortigara, G. (2008). Is there an innate geometric module? Effects of experience with angular geometric cues on spatial re-orientation based on the shape of the environment. Animal Cognition, 11(1), 139–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiandetti, C. and Vallortigara, G. (2010). Experience and geometry: controlled-rearing studies with chicks. Animal Cognition, 13(3), 463–470.Google Scholar
Chiandetti, C. and Vallortigara, G. (2011). Intuitive physical reasoning about occluded objects by inexperienced chicks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 278(1718), 2621–2627.Google Scholar
Colombo, M. and Broadbent, N. (2000). Is the avian hippocampus a functional homologue of the mammalian hippocampus? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 24, 465–484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dacke, N. and Srinivasan, M. V. (2008). Evidence for counting in insects. Animal Cognition, 11, 683–689.Google Scholar
de Hevia, M. D., Izard, V., Coubart, A., Spelke, E. S. and Streri, A. (2014). Representations of space, time, and number in neonates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111, 4809–4813.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S. (2010). La bosse des maths. New York: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S. and Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S., Izard, V., Pica, P. and Spelke, E. (2006). Core knowledge of geometry in an Amazonian indigene group. Science, 311(5759), 381–384.Google Scholar
Dillon, M. R., Huang, Y. and Spelke, E. S. (2013). Core foundations of abstract geometry. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences USA, 110(35), 14191–14195.Google Scholar
Ditz, H. M. and Nieder, A. (2015). Neurons selective to the number of visual items in the corvid songbird endbrain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 112(25), 7827–7832.Google Scholar
Drucker, C.B. and Brannon, E.M. (2014). Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) map number onto space. Cognition, 132, 57–67.Google Scholar
Forkman, B. (1998). Hens use occlusion to judge depth in a two-dimensional picture. Perception, 27, 861–867.Google Scholar
Forkman, B. and Vallortigara, G. (1999). Minimization of modal contours: an essential cross-species strategy in disambiguating relative depth. Animal Cognition, 2, 181–185.Google Scholar
Freire, R. and Nicol, C. J. (1999). Effect of experience of occlusion events on the domestic chick's strategy for locating a concealed imprinting object. Animal Behaviour, 58, 593–599.Google Scholar
Gelman, R., Spelke, E. S. and Meck, E. (1983). What preschoolers know about animate and inanimate objects. In The Acquisition of Symbolic Skills, eds. Rogers, Don and Sloboda, J. A. New York: Springer, pp. 297–326.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, G., Krasnegor, N. and Spelke, E. S. (1985). Preferential looking methods as tools for the study of cognition in infancy. In Measurement of audition and vision in the first year of postnatal life: a methodological overview, eds. Gottlieb, G. and Krasnegor, N. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 85–168.Google Scholar
Gray, E. R., Bloomfield, L. L., Ferrey, A., Spetch, M. L. and Sturdy, C. B. (2005). Spatial encoding in mountain chickadees: features overshadow geometry. Biology Letters, 1, 314–317.Google Scholar
Gray, E. R., Spetch, M. L., Kelly, D. M. and Nguyen, A. (2004). Searching in the center: pigeons encode relative distances from walls of an enclosure. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118, 113–117.Google Scholar
Güntürkün, O. (2005). The avian ‘prefrontal cortex’ and cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15(6), 686–693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hecht, H. and Proffitt, D. R. (1995). The price of expertise: effects of experience on the water level task. Psychological Science, 6, 90–95.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, A., Rüttler, V. and Nieder, A. (2011). Ontogeny of object permanence and object tracking in the carrion crow, Corvus corone. Animal Behaviour, 82(2), 359–367.Google Scholar
Hough II, G. E. and Bingman, V. P. (2004). Spatial response properties of homing pigeon hippocampal neurons: Correlations with goal locations, movement between goals, and environmental context in a radial-arm arena. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 190, 1047–1062.Google Scholar
Inoue, S. and Matsuzawa, T. (2007). Working memory of numerals in chimpanzees. Current Biology, 17, R1004–1005.Google Scholar
Izard, V., Pica, P., Spelke, E. S. and Dehaene, S. (2011). Flexible intuitions of Euclidean geometry in an Amazonian indigene group. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 108(24), 9782–9787.Google Scholar
Kanizsa, G., Renzi, P., Conte, S., Compostela, C. and Guerani, L. (1993). Amodal completion in mouse vision. Perception, 22, 713–721.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1781). The Critique of Pure Reason. (Translated into English by Mueller, F. Max, 1922). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Keinath, A. T., Julian, J. B., Epstein, R. A. and Muzzio, I. A. (2017). Environmental geometry aligns the hippocampal map during spatial reorientation. Current Biology, 27, 309–317.Google Scholar
Kohler, W. (1921). The mentality of Apes. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.Google Scholar
Lambinet, V., Wilzeck, C. and Kelly, D. M. (2014). Size doesn't matter, but features do: Clark's nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana) weigh features more heavily than geometry in large and small enclosures. Behavioural Processes, 102, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langston, R. F., Ainge, J., Couey, J. J., Canto, C. B., Bjerknes, T. L., Witter, M. P., Moser, E. and Moser, M.-B. (2010). Development of the spatial representation system in the rat. Science, 328(5985), 1576–1580.Google Scholar
Lea, S. E. G., Stater, A. M. and Ryan, C. M. E. (1996). Perception of object unity in chicks: a comparison with human infant. Infant Behavior and Development, 19, 501–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. A., Spelke, E. S. and Sovrano, V. A. (2012). Navigation as a source of geometric knowledge: Young children's use of length, angle, distance, and direction in a reorientation task. Cognition, 123, 144–161.Google Scholar
Lee, S. A., Spelke, E. S. and Vallortigara, G. (2012b). Chicks, like children, spontaneously reorient by three-dimensional environmental geometry, not by image matching. Biology Letters, 8, 492–494.Google Scholar
Lee, S. A., Vallortigara, G., Flore, M., Spelke, E. S. and Sovrano, V. A. (2013). Navigation by environmental geometry: The use of zebrafish as a model. Journal of Experimental Biology, 216, 3693–3699.Google Scholar
Lipmann, O. and Bogen, H. (1923). Naïve Physik. Arbeiten aus dem Institut fur angewandte Psychologie in Berlin. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth.Google Scholar
Loetscher, T., Bockisch, C. J., Nicholls, M. E. R. and Brugger, P. (2010). Eye position predicts what number you have in mind. Current Biology, 20, R264.Google Scholar
Luo, Y. and Baillargeon, R. (2005). Can a self-propelled box have a goal? Psychological reasoning in 5-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 16, 601–608.Google Scholar
Matsuzawa, T. (2009). Symbolic representation of number in chimpanzees. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 19, 92–98.Google Scholar
Mayer, U., Bingman, V. P., Pecchia, T., Flore, M. and Vallortigara, G. (2016). Hippocampus and medial striatum dissociation during goal navigation by geometry or features in the domestic chick: An immediate early gene study. Hippocampus, 26, 27–40.Google Scholar
McCabe, B. J. (2013). Imprinting. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(4), 375–390.Google Scholar
McCrink, K. and Opfer, J. E. (2014). Development of spatial-numerical associations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 439–445.Google Scholar
Nagasaka, Y. and Osada, Y. (2000). Subjective contours, amodal completion and transparency in animals. Japanese Journal of Animal Psychology, 50, 61–73.Google Scholar
Nagasaka, Y., Hori, K. and Osada, Y. (2005). Perceptual grouping in pigeons. Perception, 34, 625–632.Google Scholar
Nieder, A. (2013). Coding of abstract quantity by ‘number neurons’ of the primate brain. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 199, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Takahasi, M. and Okanoya, K. (2013). An invisible sign stimulus: completion of occluded visual images in the Bengalase finch in an ecological context. Neuroreport, 24, 370–374.Google Scholar
Pattison, K. F., Miller, H. C., Rayburn-Reeves, R. and Zentall, T. (2011). The case of the disappearing bone: Dogs’ understanding of the physical properties of objects. Behavioural Processes, 85(3), 278–282.Google Scholar
Pearce, J. M., George, D. N., Haselgrove, M., Erichsen, J. T. and Good, M. A. (2005). The influence of hippocampal lesions on the discrimination of structure and on spatial memory in pigeons (Columba livia). Behavioral Neuroscience, 119, 1316–1330.Google Scholar
Pecchia, T. and Vallortigara, G. (2012). Spatial reorientation by geometry with freestanding objects and extended surfaces: a unifying view. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 279(1736), 2228–2236.Google Scholar
Pepperberg, I. M. (2002). The value of the Piagetian framework for comparative cognitive studies. Animal Cognition, 5(3), 177–182.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1953). The origin of intelligence in the child. New Fetter Lane, New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Pollok, B., Prior, H. and Güntürkün, O. (2000). Development of object permanence in food-storing magpies (Pica pica). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 114, 148–157.Google Scholar
Regolin, L., Marconato, F. and Vallortigara, G. (2004). Hemispheric differences in the recognition of partly occluded objects by newly hatched domestic chicks (Gallus gallus). Animal Cognition, 7, 162–170.Google Scholar
Regolin, L. and Vallortigara, G. (1995). Perception of partly occluded objects by young chicks. Perception and Psychophysics, 57, 971–976.Google Scholar
Regolin, L., Vallortigara, G. and Zanforlin, M. (1995). Object and spatial representations in detour problems by chicks. Animal Behaviour, 49, 195–199.Google Scholar
Rogers, L. J., Rigosi, E., Frasnelli, E., et al. (1999). A right antenna for social behaviour in honeybees. Scientific Reports, 3, 2045.Google Scholar
Roitman, J. D., Brannon, E. M. and Platt, M. L. (2012). Representation of numerosity in posterior parietal cortex. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 6, 1–9.Google Scholar
Rose, S. P. R. (2000). God's organism. The chick as a model for the study of learning and memory. Learning and Memory, 7, 1–17.Google Scholar
Rugani, R., Cavazzana, A., Vallortigara, G. and Regolin, L. (2013). One, two, three, four, or is there something more? Numerical discrimination in day-old domestic chicks. Animal Cognition, 16, 557–564.Google Scholar
Rugani, R., Fontanari, L., Simoni, E., Regolin, L. and Vallortigara, G. (2009). Arithmetic in newborn chicks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276, 2451–2460.Google Scholar
Rugani, R., Kelly, D. M., Szelest, I., Regolin, L. and Vallortigara, G. (2010a). Is it only humans that count from left to right? Biology Letters, 6, 290–292.Google Scholar
Rugani, R., Regolin, L. and Vallortigara, G. (2007). Rudimental numerical competence in 5-day-old domestic chicks: Identification of ordinal position. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 21–31.Google Scholar
Rugani, R., Regolin, L. and Vallortigara, G. (2008). Discrimination of small numerosities in young chicks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 388–399.Google Scholar
Rugani, R., Regolin, L. and Vallortigara, G. (2010b). Imprinted numbers: Newborn chicks' sensitivity to number vs. continuous extent of objects they have been reared with. Developmental Science, 13, 790–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rugani, R., Regolin, L. and Vallortigara, G. (2011). Summation of large numerousness by newborn chicks. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 179.Google Scholar
Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G., Priftis, K. and Regolin, L. (2015). Number-space mapping in the newborn chick resembles humans' mental number line. Science, 347(6221), 534–536.Google Scholar
Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G. and Regolin, G. (2013a). From small to large: numerical discrimination by young domestic chicks (Gallus gallus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 128(2), 163–171.Google Scholar
Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G. and Regolin, L. (2013b). Numerical abstraction in young domestic chicks (Gallus gallus). Discrimination of large numbers. PLoS One, 8(6), e65262.Google Scholar
Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G. and Regolin, L. (2016). Mapping number to space in the two hemispheres of the avian brain. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 133, 13–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sato, A., Kanazawa, S. and Fujita, K. (1997). Perception of objects unity in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Japanese Psychological Research, 39, 191–199.Google Scholar
Siegel, J. J., Nitz, D. and Bingman, V. P. (2005). Spatial-specificity of single-units in the hippocampal formation of freely moving homing pigeons. Hippocampus, 15, 26–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, J. J., Nitz, D. and Bingman, V. P. (2006). Lateralized functional components of spatial cognition in the avian hippocampal formation: Evidence from single-unit recordings in freely moving homing pigeons. Hippocampus, 16, 125–140.Google Scholar
Shaki, S., Fischer, M. H. and Petrusic, W. M. (2009). Reading habits for both words and numbers contribute to the SNARC effect. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 328–331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, B. and Casati, R. (1994). Naïve physics. Philosophical Psychology, 7, 227–247.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. S. (1985). Preferential looking methods as tools for the study of cognition in infancy. In Gottlieb, G. and Krasnegor, N (Eds.), Measurement of audition and vision in the first year of postnatal life. Norwood, New Jersy: Ablex. pp. 323–363.Google Scholar
Spelke, E., Lee, S. A. and Izard, V. (2010). Beyond core knowledge: Natural geometry. Cognitive Science, 34(5), 863–884.Google Scholar
Stancher, G, Sovrano, V. A., Potrich, D. and Vallortigara, G. (2013). Discrimination of small quantities by fish (redtail splitfin, Xenotoca eiseni). Animal Cognition, 16, 307–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sugita, Y. (1999). Grouping of image fragments in primary visual cortex. Nature, 401, 269–272.Google Scholar
Tommasi, L., Chiandetti, C., Pecchia, T., Sovrano, V. A. and Vallortigara, G. (2012). From natural geometry to spatial cognition. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(2), 799–824.Google Scholar
Tommasi, L. and Thinus-Blanc, C. (2004). Generalization in place learning and geometry knowledge in rats. Learning & Memory, 11, 153–161.Google Scholar
Tommasi, L., Vallortigara, G. and Zanforlin, M. (1997). Young chickens learn to localize the centre of a spatial environment. Journal of Comparative Physiology A-Sensory, Neural and Behavioral Physiology, 180(5), 567–572.Google Scholar
Twyman, A. D., Newcombe, N. S. and Gould, T. J. (2013). Malleability in the development of spatial reorientation. Developmental Psychobiology, 55(3), 243–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vallortigara, G. (2004). Visual cognition and representation in birds and primates. In Vertebrate comparative cognition: are primates superior to non-primates? eds. Rogers, L. J. and Kaplan, G.. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 57–94.Google Scholar
Vallortigara, G. (2009). Animals as natural geometers. In Cognitive Biology: Evolutionary and Developmental Perspectives on Mind, Brain and Behavior, eds. Tommasi, L., Nadel, L and Peterson, M, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 83–104.Google Scholar
Vallortigara, G. and Rogers, L. J. (2005). Survival with an asymmetrical brain: Advantages and disadvantages of cerebral lateralization. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 575–589.Google Scholar
Vallortigara, G., Chiandetti, C. and Sovrano, V. A. (2011). Brain asymmetry (animal). Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2, 146–157.Google Scholar
Vallortigara, G. (2012). Core knowledge of object, number, and geometry: A comparative and neural approach. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29(1–2), 37–41.Google Scholar
Vallortigara, G. and Regolin, L. (2002). Facing an obstacle: lateralization of object and spatial cognition. In Comparative vertebrate lateralization, eds. Andrew, R. J. and Rogers, L. J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 383–444.Google Scholar
Vallortigara, G., Regolin, L., Chiandetti, C. and Rugani, R. (2010). Rudiments of mind: Insights through the chick model on number and space cognition in animals. Comparative Cognition and Behavior Reviews, 5, 78–99.Google Scholar
Vallortigara, G., Rogers, L. J. and Bisazza, A. (1999). Possible evolutionary origins of cognitive brain lateralization. Brain Research Reviews, 30, 164–175.Google Scholar
Vallortigara, G., Rogers, L. J., Bisazza, A., Lippolis, G. and Robins, A. (1998). Complementary specializations of the right and left hemifield for predatory and agonistic behaviour in toads. NeuroReport, 9, 3341–3344.Google Scholar
Vallortigara, G., Sovrano, V. A. and Chiandetti, C. (2009). Doing Socrates experiment right: controlled rearing studies of geometrical knowledge in animals. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 19(1), 20–26.Google Scholar
Vallortigara, G. and Tommasi, L. (2001). Minimization of modal contours: an instance of an evolutionary internalized geometric regularity? Brain Behavioral Sciences, 24, 706–707.Google Scholar
Vargas, J. P., Petruso, E. J. and Bingman, V. P. (2004). Hippocampal formation is required for geometric navigation in pigeons. European Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 1937–1944.Google Scholar
Veit, L., Hartmann, K. and Nieder, A. (2014). Neuronal correlates of visual working memory in the corvid endbrain. Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 7778–7786.Google Scholar
Veit, L. and Nieder, A. (2013). Abstract rule neurons in the endbrain support intelligent behavior in corvid songbirds. Nature Communications, 4, 2878.Google Scholar
Wills, T. J., Cacucci, F., Burgess, N. and O'Keefe, J. (2010). Development of the hippocampal cognitive map in preweanling rats. Science, 328(5985), 1573–1576.Google Scholar
Zebian, S. (2005). Linkages between number, concepts, spatial thinking, and directionality of writing: the SNARC effect and the reverse SNARC effect in English and Arabic monoliterates, biliterates, and illiterate Arabic speakers. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 5, 165–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucca, P., Antonelli, F. and Vallortigara, G. (2005). Detour behaviour in three species of birds: quails (Coturnix sp.), herring gulls (Larus cachinnans) and canaries (Serinus canaria). Animal Cognition, 8, 122–128.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×