Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-5ngxj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-30T09:39:48.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Core knowledge as a neuro-ethologist views it

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2024

Giorgio Vallortigara Open the ORCID record for Giorgio Vallortigara [Opens in a new window]
Giorgio Vallortigara*
Affiliation:
Centre for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Rovereto, TN, Italy Giorgio.vallortigara@unitn.it http://r.unitn.it/en/cimec/abc
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Innateness of core knowledge mechanisms (in the form of “cognitive priors”) can be revealed by proper comparisons of altricial and precocial species. Cognitive priors and sensitive periods in their expression may also provide clues for the development of plausible artificial intelligence systems.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e144
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Giorgio, E., Loveland, J. L., Mayer, U., Rosa-Salva, O., Versace, E., & Vallortigara, G. (2017). Filial responses as predisposed and learned preferences: Early attachment in chicks and babies. Behavioural Brain Research, 325, 90–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Giorgio, E., Lunghi, M., Rugani, R., Regolin, L., Dalla Barba, B., Vallortigara, G., & Simion, F. (2019). A mental number line in human newborns. Developmental Science, 22, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drucker, C. B., & Brannon, E. M. (2014). Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) map number onto space. Cognition, 132, 57–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eccher, E., Josserand, M., Caparos, S., Boissin, E., Buiatti, M., Piazza, M., & Vallortigara, G. (2023). A universal left-to-right bias in number-space mapping across ages and cultures. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/w2st6Google Scholar
Galton, F. (1880). Visualised numerals. Nature, 21, 252–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giurfa, M., Marcout, C., Hilpert, P., Thevenot, C., & Rugani, R. (2022). An insect brain organizes numbers on a left-to-right mental number line. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 119, 2203584119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hensch, T. K., & Quinlan, E. M. (2018). Critical periods in amblyopia. Visual Neuroscience, 35, E014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lea, S. E. G., Slater, A. M., & 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
Lorenzi, E., Lemaire, B. S., Versace, E., Matsushima, T., & Vallortigara, G. (2021). Resurgence of an inborn attraction for animate objects via thyroid hormone T3. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 15, 675994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzi, E., & Vallortigara, G. (2021). Evolutionary and neural bases of the sense of animacy. In Kaufman, A., Call, J. & Kaufman, J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of animal cognition (pp. 295–321). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, G. (2018). Innateness, alphazero, and artificial intelligence. arXiv.Google Scholar
Michotte, A., Thinés, G., & Crabbé, G. (1964). Les complements amodaux des structures perceptives [Amodal complements of perceptual structures]. Publications Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Pitt, B., Ferrigno, S., Cantlon, J. F., Casasanto, D., Gibson, E., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2021). Spatial concepts of number, size, and time in an indigenous culture. Science Advances, 7(33), 1–7 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (1995). Perception of partly occluded objects by young chicks. Perception and Psychophysics, 57, 971–976.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G., Priftis, K., & Regolin, L. (2015). Number-space mapping in the newborn chick resembles humans’ mental number line. Science, 347, 534–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spelke, E. (2022). What babies know. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valenza, E., Leo, I., Gava, L., & Simion, F. (2006). Perceptual completion in newborn human infants. Child Development, 77, 1810–1821.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vallortigara, G. (2012). Core knowledge of object, number, and geometry: A comparative and neural approach. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29, 213–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vallortigara, G. (2018). Comparative cognition of number and space: The case of geometry and of the mental number line. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 373, 20170120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallortigara, G. (2021). Born knowing: Imprinting and the origins of knowledge. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallortigara, G., Regolin, L., & Marconato, F. (2005). Visually inexperienced chicks exhibit a spontaneous preference for biological motion patterns. PLoS Biology, 3, 1312–1316 (e208).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Versace, E., Martinho-Truswel, A., Kacelnik, A., & Vallortigara, G. (2018). Priors in animal and artificial intelligence: Where does learning begin? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 963–965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed