Literature DB >> 23486439

Camouflage, detection and identification of moving targets.

Joanna R Hall1, Innes C Cuthill, Roland Baddeley, Adam J Shohet, Nicholas E Scott-Samuel.   

Abstract

Nearly all research on camouflage has investigated its effectiveness for concealing stationary objects. However, animals have to move, and patterns that only work when the subject is static will heavily constrain behaviour. We investigated the effects of different camouflages on the three stages of predation-detection, identification and capture-in a computer-based task with humans. An initial experiment tested seven camouflage strategies on static stimuli. In line with previous literature, background-matching and disruptive patterns were found to be most successful. Experiment 2 showed that if stimuli move, an isolated moving object on a stationary background cannot avoid detection or capture regardless of the type of camouflage. Experiment 3 used an identification task and showed that while camouflage is unable to slow detection or capture, camouflaged targets are harder to identify than uncamouflaged targets when similar background objects are present. The specific details of the camouflage patterns have little impact on this effect. If one has to move, camouflage cannot impede detection; but if one is surrounded by similar targets (e.g. other animals in a herd, or moving background distractors), then camouflage can slow identification. Despite previous assumptions, motion does not entirely 'break' camouflage.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23486439      PMCID: PMC3619462          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.0064

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  16 in total

1.  The pop out of scene-relative object movement against retinal motion due to self-movement.

Authors:  Simon K Rushton; Mark F Bradshaw; Paul A Warren
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2006-10-27

2.  Empirical tests of the role of disruptive coloration in reducing detectability.

Authors:  Stewart Fraser; Alison Callahan; Dana Klassen; Thomas N Sherratt
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2007-05-22       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 3.  Predator perception and the interrelation between different forms of protective coloration.

Authors:  Martin Stevens
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2007-06-22       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Background-matching and disruptive coloration, and the evolution of cryptic coloration.

Authors:  Sami Merilaita; Johan Lind
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-03-22       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Visual search for a conjunction of movement and form is parallel.

Authors:  P McLeod; J Driver; J Crisp
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1988-03-10       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Visual search and stimulus similarity.

Authors:  J Duncan; G W Humphreys
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  Theory of edge detection.

Authors:  D Marr; E Hildreth
Journal:  Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  1980-02-29

8.  Motion dazzle and camouflage as distinct anti-predator defenses.

Authors:  Martin Stevens; W Tom L Searle; Jenny E Seymour; Kate L A Marshall; Graeme D Ruxton
Journal:  BMC Biol       Date:  2011-11-25       Impact factor: 7.431

9.  Disruptive coloration and background pattern matching.

Authors:  Innes C Cuthill; Martin Stevens; Jenna Sheppard; Tracey Maddocks; C Alejandro Párraga; Tom S Troscianko
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-03-03       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Disruptive coloration, crypsis and edge detection in early visual processing.

Authors:  Martin Stevens; Innes C Cuthill
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-09-07       Impact factor: 5.349

View more
  26 in total

Review 1.  How camouflage works.

Authors:  Sami Merilaita; Nicholas E Scott-Samuel; Innes C Cuthill
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 2.  Unravelling the illusion of flicker fusion.

Authors:  Diana Umeton; Jenny C A Read; Candy Rowe
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 3.703

3.  In the corner of the eye: camouflaging motion in the peripheral visual field.

Authors:  Ioan E Smart; Innes C Cuthill; Nicholas E Scott-Samuel
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-01-15       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Predator responses to prey camouflage strategies: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  João Vitor de Alcantara Viana; Camila Vieira; Rafael Campos Duarte; Gustavo Quevedo Romero
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-09-14       Impact factor: 5.530

5.  The anti-predation benefit of flash displays is related to the distance at which the prey initiates its escape.

Authors:  Karl Loeffler-Henry; Changku Kang; Thomas N Sherratt
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-07-28       Impact factor: 5.530

6.  Moving in groups: how density and unpredictable motion affect predation risk.

Authors:  Nicholas E Scott-Samuel; Gavin Holmes; Roland Baddeley; Innes C Cuthill
Journal:  Behav Ecol Sociobiol       Date:  2015-02-24       Impact factor: 2.980

7.  The evolution of pattern camouflage strategies in waterfowl and game birds.

Authors:  Kate L A Marshall; Thanh-Lan Gluckman
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 2.912

8.  On the Hunt: Searching for Poorly Defined Camouflaged Targets.

Authors:  Alyssa S Hess; Andrew J Wismer; Corey J Bohil; Mark B Neider
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-28       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  What enables size-selective trophy hunting of wildlife?

Authors:  Chris T Darimont; K Rosie Child
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Dynamic Dazzle Distorts Speed Perception.

Authors:  Joanna R Hall; Innes C Cuthill; Roland Baddeley; Angela S Attwood; Marcus R Munafò; Nicholas E Scott-Samuel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.