New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Baby Chicks' Mental Number Line Looks Like Ours

Like humans, animals seem to have an innate preference for small numbers on the left and larger numbers on the right

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Think of a number. Now think of a bigger number. Now imagine them in front of you. If you are seeing the smaller number on the left, you have just confirmed an oft-repeated finding: people tend to map numbers onto space from left to right. Mounting evidence, including research on preverbal infants, suggests this tendency is innate, although it can be easily overwritten by culture. Now, in a study published this past January in Science, a team of researchers at the University of Trento in Italy, led by cognitive psychologist Rosa Rugani, has shown that infants of a different species altogether also prefer to see bigger numbers on the right.

The team trained three-day-old chicks to walk around a panel for food. First, a group of chicks learned to find food behind a panel displaying five dots. Then the researchers replaced that panel with a pair of new panels. When these new panels displayed two dots each, the chicks walked to the left panel first 70 percent of the time. When the panels showed eight dots each, the chicks tended to choose the right panel—as if preferring to see smaller numbers on the left and larger numbers on the right.

The researchers then repeated the experiment with different chicks that were trained using 20 dots and tested using eight or 32 dots. In both experiments, the chicks veered left for relatively smaller numbers and right for larger numbers. The scientists chose the number eight to be smaller in one context and bigger in the other, showing that the effect depends on relative amounts rather than any absolute preference.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The findings strongly confirm the idea that the left-to-right tendency is innate. Research has shown that this tendency can be modified quite easily by experience, however, so overriding it most likely presents little problem to young brains in a culture that writes from right to left. Arabic speakers, for example, show the reverse spatial tendency. Others who write language from right to left and digits from left to right, as in Hebrew, display no particular spatial preference.

The authors suggest their results are related to the fact that brains are not symmetrical. The right hemisphere dominates visuospatial processing, leading to a preference for the left side of space to dominate attention—perhaps explaining why we naturally think of the “first” numbers there as we count. The spatial mapping might also arise from a physical map of numbers in the brain, which has been found in humans in the right posterior parietal cortex but has not yet been seen in animals.

Simon Makin is a freelance science journalist based in the U.K. His work has appeared in New Scientist, the Economist, Scientific American and Nature, among others. He covers the life sciences and specializes in neuroscience, psychology and mental health. Follow Makin on X (formerly Twitter) @SimonMakin

More by Simon Makin
SA Mind Vol 26 Issue 5This article was published with the title “Baby Chicks Have a Mental Number Line Like Ours” in SA Mind Vol. 26 No. 5 (), p. 17
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0915-17

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe