CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 117Spatial Cognition and NavigationFish biology, ecology, and behaviorMemory and Neural Mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

How fish do geometry in large and in small spaces

Sovrano, Valeria Anna, Bisazza, Angelo, Vallortigara, Giorgio·2006·Animal Cognition
DOI 10.1007/s10071-006-0029-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

It has been shown that children and non-human animals seem to integrate geometric and featural information to different extents in order to reorient themselves in environments of different spatial scales. We trained fish (redtail splitfins, Xenotoca eiseni) to reorient to find a corner in a rectangular tank with a distinctive featural cue (a blue wall). Then we tested fish after displacement of the feature on another adjacent wall. In the large enclosure, fish chose the two corners with the feature, and also tended to choose among them the one that maintained the correct arrangement of the featural cue with respect to geometric sense (i.e. left-right position). In contrast, in the small enclosure, fish chose both the two corners with the features and the corner, without any feature, that maintained the correct metric arrangement of the walls with respect to geometric sense. Possible reasons for species differences in the use of geometric and non-geometric information are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10071-006-0029-4

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A number of studies have demonstrated that teleost fish can rely on the geometry or global shape of the environmental boundaries and surfaces for orientation and navigation.

    “a number of studies have demonstrated also that teleost fish can rely on the geometry or global shape of the environmental boundaries and surfaces for orientation and navigation”

    From Spatial Cognition in Teleost Fish: Strategies and Mechanisms (2021) · cites this paper as [86]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Brown C, Braithwaite VA (2005) Effects of predation pressure on the cognitive ability of the poeciliid Brachyraphis episcope. Behav Ecol 16:482–487 · DOI
  2. Burt de Perera T (2004) Spatial parameters encoded in the spatial map of the blind Mexican cave fish, Astyanax fasciatus. Anim Behav 68:291–295 · DOI
  3. Cheng K (1986) A purely geometric module in the rat's spatial representation. Cognition 23:149–178 · DOI
  4. Cheng K, Newcombe NS (2005) Is there a geometric module for spatial orientation? Squaring theory and evidence. Psychon Bull Rev 12:1–23 · DOI
  5. Deipolyi A, Santos L, Hauser MD (2001) The role of landmarks in cotton-top tamarin spatial foraging: evidence for geometric and non-geometric features. Anim Cogn 4:99–108 · DOI
  6. Gouteux S, Thinus-Blanc C, Vauclair J (2001) Rhesus monkeys use geometric and nongeometric information during a reorientation task. J Exp Psychol: Gen 130:505–519 · DOI
  7. Gray ER, Bloomfield LL, Ferrey A, Spetch ML, Sturdy CB (2005) Spatial encoding in mountain chickadees: features overshadow geometry. Biol Lett 1:314–317 · DOI
  8. Hermer L, Spelke ES (1994) A geometric process for spatial reorientation in young children. Nature 370:57–59 · DOI
  9. Hermer L, Spelke ES (1996) Modularity and development: the case of spatial reorientation. Cognition 61:195–232 · DOI
  10. Hupbach A, Nadel L (2005) Reorientation in a rhombic environment: no evidence for an encapsulated geometric module. Cogn Dev 20:279–302 · DOI
  11. Kelly DM, Spetch ML, Heth CD (1998) Pigeons (Columba livia) encoding of geometric and featural properties of a spatial environment. J Comp Psychol 112:259–269 · DOI
  12. Learmonth AE, Nadel L, Newcombe NS (2002) Children's use of landmarks: implication for modularity theory. Psychol Sci 13:337–341 · DOI
  13. Learmonth AE, Newcombe NS, Huttenlocher J (2001) Toddlers’ use of metric information and landmarks to reorient. J Exp Child Psychol 80:225–244 · DOI
  14. Meyer MK, Wischnath L, Foerster W (1985) Lebendgeba¨rende Zierfishe: Arten der Welt. Mergus Verlag, Melle
  15. Nadel L, Hupbach A (2006) Cross-species comparisons in development: the case of the spatial “module”. In: Johnson MH, Munakata Y (eds) Attention and Performance XXI. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 499–511
  16. Sovrano VA, Bisazza A, Vallortigara G (2001) Lateralization of response to social stimuli in fishes: a comparison between different methods and species. Physiol Behav 74:237–244 · DOI
  17. Sovrano VA, Bisazza A, Vallortigara G (2002) Modularity and spatial reorientation in a simple mind: encoding of geometric and nongeometric properties of a spatial environment by fish. Cognition 85:B51–B59 · DOI
  18. Sovrano VA, Bisazza A, Vallortigara G (2003) Modularity as a fish views it: conjoining geometric and nongeometric information for spatial reorientation. J Exp Psychol: Anim Behav Process 29:199–210
  19. Sovrano VA, Bisazza A, Vallortigara G (2005) Animals’ use of landmarks and metric information to reorient: effects of the size of the experimental space. Cognition 97:121–133 · DOI
  20. Sovrano VA, Rainoldi C, Bisazza A, Vallortigara G (1999) Roots of brain specializations: preferential left-eye use during mirror-image inspection in six species of teleost fish. Behav Brain Res 106:175–180 · DOI
  21. Spelke ES (2000) Core knowledge. Am Psychol 55:1233–1243 · DOI
  22. Spelke ES (2003) What makes us smart. Core knowledge and natural language. In: Gentner D, Goldin-Meadow S (eds) Language in mind. Advances in the study of language and thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 277–311 · DOI
  23. Spelke ES, Tsivkin S (2001) Initial knowledge and conceptual change: space and number. In: Bowerman M, Levinson S (eds) Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
  24. Vallortigara G (2004) Visual cognition and representation in birds and primates. In: Rogers LJ, Kaplan G (eds) Vertebrate comparative cognition: are primates superior to non-primates? Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, Boston, New York, pp 57–94 · DOI
  25. Vallortigara G (2006) The cognitive chicken: visual and spatial cognition in a non-mammalian brain. In: Wasserman EA, Zentall TR (eds) comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp 41–58
  26. Vallortigara G, Sovrano VA (2002) Conjoining information from different modules: a comparative perspective. Behav Brain Sci 25:701–702 · DOI
  27. Vallortigara G, Feruglio M, Sovrano VA (2005) Reorientation by geometric and landmark information in environments of different size. Dev Sci 8:393–401 · DOI
  28. Vallortigara G, Pagni P, Sovrano VA (2004) Separate geometric and non-geometric modules for spatial reorientation: evidence from a lopsided animal brain. J Cogn Neurosci 16:390–400 · DOI
  29. Vallortigara G, Zanforlin M, Pasti G (1990) Geometric modules in animal's spatial representation: a test with chicks. J Comp Psychol 104:248–254 · DOI
  30. Vargas JP, Lopez JC, Salas C, Thinus-Blanc C (2004) Encoding of geometric and featural spatial information by Goldfish (Carassius auratus). J Comp Psychol 118:206–216 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Wang RF, Spelke ES (2002) Human spatial representation: insights from animals. Trends Cogn Sci 6:376–382 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sovrano, V. A., Bisazza, A., & Vallortigara, G.
Affiliations
University of Padua (IT)
Corresponding author
Sovrano, Valeria Anna
ORCID
Venue
Animal Cognition
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2006-06-21
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
47-54
ISSN
  • 1435-9448 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-9456
DOI
10.1007/s10071-006-0029-4
OpenAlex
W1973349385
Cited by
117
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
33.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Animal Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) (submittedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish biology, ecology, and behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
spatial cognition, fish navigation, Xenotoca eiseni, spatial scale, geometric cues, left-right orientation, spatial reorientation
MeSH terms
Animals, Association Learning, Color Perception, Cues, Discrimination Learning, Distance Perception, Fishes, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Social Environment, Space Perception, Visual Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review