Cover not available
Article published In:
Interaction Studies
Vol. 15:1 (2014) ► pp.113–128

Novelty preference in face perception by week-old lambs (Ovis aries)

An extensive literature has been accumulating, in recent years, on face-processing in sheep and on the relevance of faces for social interaction in this species. In spite of this, spontaneous preferences for face or non-face stimuli in lambs have not been reported. In this study we tested the spontaneous preference of 8-day-old lambs (N = 9) for three pairs of stimuli. In each pair, one stimulus was a face-like display, whereas the other presented the same inner features displaced in unnatural positions. One pair of stimuli was obtained from photographic images of ewes’ faces, the other two pairs were schematic face-like stimuli. Lambs could differentiate the two stimuli obtained by photos of conspecifics, looking longer at the non-face stimulus (p < 0.05). We interpret this as a novelty preference, proving that few day-old lambs have already encoded the structural properties that define a face and recognize violations of those general properties.
Keywords: Ovis aries, face configuration, lamb, early learning, face preference, sheep, novelty preference
Published online: 10 June 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.15.1.05ros
References (53)
Alexander, G., & Shillito Walser, E. (1977). Importance of visual cues from various body regions in maternal recognition of the young in Merino sheep (Ovis aries). Applied Animal Ethology, 31, 137–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouissou, M.F., Porter, R.H., Boyle, L., & Ferreira, G. (1996). Influence of a conspecific image of own vs. different breed on fear reactions of ewes. Behavioural Processes, 381, 37–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, S.D., & Dooling, R.J. (1992). Perception of conspecific faces by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): I. Natural faces. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1061, 203–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993). Perception of conspecific faces by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): II. Synthetic models. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1071, 48–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Candland, D.K. (1969). Discriminability of facial regions used by the domestic chicken in maintaining the social dominance order. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 691, 281–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
da Costa, A.P., Leigh, A.E., Man, M., & Kendrick, K.M. (2004). Face pictures reduce behavioural, autonomic, endocrine and neural indices of stress and fear in sheep. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 271(1552), 2077–2084. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M.S. (1995). How do hens view other hens? The use of lateral and binocular visual fields in social recognition. Behaviour, 1321, 591–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996). Distance and social recognition in hens: implications for the use of photographs as social stimuli. Behaviour, 1331, 663–680. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, H.D., Shepherd, J.W., & Davies, G.M. (1979). Identification of familiar and unfamiliar faces from the internal and external features: Some implications for theories of face recognition. Perception, 81, 431–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farah, M.J., Rabinowitz, C., Quinn, G.E., & Liu, G.T. (2000). Early commitment of neural substrates for face recognition. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 171, 117–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farroni, T., Menon, E., Rigato, S., & Johnson, M.H. (2007). The perception of facial expressions in newborns. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 41, 2–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farroni, T., Menon, E., & Johnson, M.H. (2006). Factors influencing newborns’ preference for faces with eye contact. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 951, 298–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farroni, T., Johnson, M.H., Menon, E., Zulian, L., Faraguna, D., & Csibra G. (2005). Newborns’ preference for face-relevant stimuli: effects of contrast polarity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1021, 17245–17250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guhl, A.M., & Ortman, L.L. (1953). Visual patterns in the recognition of individuals among chickens. The Condor, 551, 287–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hainline, L. (1978). Developmental changes in visual scanning of face and nonface patterns by infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 251, 90–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haith, M., Bergman, T., & Moore, M. (1977). Eye contact and face scanning in early infancy. Science, 1981, 853–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M.H. (2005). Subcortical face processing. Nature Review of Neuroscience, 61, 766–774. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kanwisher, N. (2000). Domain specificity in face perception. Nature Neuroscience, 31, 759–763. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K.M. (1991). How the sheep’s brain controls the visual recognition of animals and humans. Journal of Animal Science, 691, 5008–5016.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994). Neurobiological correlates of visual and olfactory recognition in sheep. Behavioural Processes, 331, 89–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998). Intelligent perception. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 571, 213–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K.M., Atkins, K., Hinton, M.R., Heavens, P., & Keverne, E.B. (1996). Are faces special for sheep? Evidence from facial and symbol discrimination learning tests showing effects of inversion and social familiarity. Behavioural Processes, 381, 19–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K.M., & Baldwin, B.A. (1987). Cells in temporal cortex of conscious sheep can respond preferentially to the sight of faces, Science, 236(4800), 448–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K.N., Da Costa, A.P., Leigh, A.E., Hinton, M.R., & Peirce, J.W. (2001). Sheep don’t forget a face. Nature, 4411, 165–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K.M., Hinton, M.R., Atkins, K., & Keverne, E.B. (1995). Facial discrimination in sheep. Animal Behaviour, 491, 1665–1676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leo, I., & Simion, F. (2009). Face processing at birth: a Thatcher illusion study. Developmental Science, 121, 492–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, S.R. (2000). Handbook of applied dog behaviour and training: Volume one -adaptation and learning. Iowa: Iowa State University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macchi Cassia, V., Turati, C., & Simion, S. (2004). Can a nonspecific bias toward top-heavy patterns explain newborns’ face preference? Psychological Science, 151, 379–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C.J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 61, 255–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milewski, A. (1976). Infant’s discrimination of internal and external pattern elements. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 221, 229–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morton, J., & Johnson, M.H. (1991). CONSPEC and CON- LERN: a two-process theory of infant face recognition. Psychological Review, 981, 164–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nelson, C.A. (2001). The development and neural bases of face recognition. Infant and Child Development, 101, 3–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nowak, R. (1990). Mother and sibling discrimination at a distance by three- to seven-day-old lambs. Developmental Psychology, 231, 285–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991). Senses involved in discrimination of merino ewes at close contact and from a distance by their newborn lambs. Animal Behaviour, 421, 357–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parrott, R.F., Houpt, K.A., & Misson, B.H. (1988). Modifications of the responses of sheep to isolation stress by the use of mirror panels. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 191, 331–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perrett, D.I., Hietanen, J.K., Oram, M.W., & Benson, P.J. (1992). Organization and function of cells responsive to faces in the temporal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 3351, 23–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, J.W., Leigh, A.E., & Kendrick, K.M. (2000). Configurational coding, familiarity and the right hemisphere advantage for face recognition in sheep. Neuropsychologia, 381, 475–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Porter, R.H., & Bouissou, M.F. (1999). Discriminative responsiveness by lambs to visual images of conspecifics. Behavioural Processes, 481, 101–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regolin, L., Rugani, R., Stancher, G., & Vallortigara, G. (2011). Spontaneous discrimination of possible and impossible objects by newly hatched chicks. Biology Letters, 7(5), 654–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosa-Salva, O., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2010). Faces are special for newly hatched chicks: evidence for inborn domain-specific mechanisms underlying spontaneous preferences for face-like stimuli. Developmental Science, 13(4), 565–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosa Salva, O., Farroni, T., Regolin, L., Vallortigara, G., & Johnson, M.H. (2011). The evolution of social orienting: Evidence from chicks (Gallus gallus) and human newborns. PLoS One, 6(4), e18802. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosa Salva, O., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2012). Inversion of contrast polarity abolishes spontaneous preferences for face-like stimuli in newborn chicks. Behavioural Brain Research, 2281, 133–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shillito, E., & Alexander, G. (1975). Mutual recognition amongst ewes and lambs of four breeds of sheep (Ovis aries). Applied Animal Ethology, 11, 151–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sugita, Y. (2008). Face perception in monkeys reared with no exposure to faces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1051, 394–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tate, A.J., Fischer, H., Leigh, A.E., & Kendrick, K.M. (2006). Behavioural and neurophysiological evidence for face identity and face emotion processing in animals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 3611, 2155–2172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tibbetts, E.A. (2002). Visual signals of individual identity in the wasp Polistes fuscatus. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 2691, 1423–1428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tovée, M.J. (1998). Is face processing special? Neuron, 211, 1239–1242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turati, C., Bulf, H., & Simion, F. (2007). Newborns’ face recognition over changes in viewpoint. Cognition, 1061, 1300–1321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turati, C., Macchi Cassia, V., Simion, F., & Leo, I. (2006). Newborns’ face recognition: role of inner and outer facial features. Child Development, 771, 297–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turati, C., & Simion, F. (2002). Newborns’ recognition of changing and unchanging aspects of schematic faces. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 831, 239–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turati, C., Simion, F., Milani, I., & Umiltà, C. (2002). Newborns’ preference for faces: What is crucial? Developmental Psychology, 61, 875–882. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Velden, J., Zheng, Y., Patullo, B.W., & Macmillan, D.L. (2008). Crayfish recognize the faces of fight opponents. PLoS One, 31, e1695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walser, E.S., & Alexander, G. (1980). Mutual recognition between ewes and lambs. Reproduction, Nutrition, Development, 20(3B), 807–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Freitas-de-Melo, Aline, Agustín Orihuela, Maria José Hötzel & Rodolfo Ungerfeld
2022. What Do We Know and Need to Know About Weaning in Sheep? An Overview of Weaning Practises, Stress and Welfare. Frontiers in Animal Science 3 DOI logo
Ungerfeld, Rodolfo, Alice Fernández-Werner, Özdal Gökdal, Okan Atay & Aline Freitas-de-Melo
2021. Lambs identify their mothers’ bleats but not a picture of her face. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 46 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.