Literature DB >> 24152693

Disruptive camouflage impairs object recognition.

Richard J Webster1, Christopher Hassall, Chris M Herdman, Jean-Guy J Godin, Thomas N Sherratt.   

Abstract

Whether hiding from predators, or avoiding battlefield casualties, camouflage is widely employed to prevent detection. Disruptive coloration is a seemingly well-known camouflage mechanism proposed to function by breaking up an object's salient features (for example their characteristic outline), rendering objects more difficult to recognize. However, while a wide range of animals are thought to evade detection using disruptive patterns, there is no direct experimental evidence that disruptive coloration impairs recognition. Using humans searching for computer-generated moth targets, we demonstrate that the number of edge-intersecting patches on a target reduces the likelihood of it being detected, even at the expense of reduced background matching. Crucially, eye-tracking data show that targets with more edge-intersecting patches were looked at for longer periods prior to attack, and passed-over more frequently during search tasks. We therefore show directly that edge patches enhance survivorship by impairing recognition, confirming that disruptive coloration is a distinct camouflage strategy, not simply an artefact of background matching.

Entities:  

Keywords:  background matching; crypsis; disruptive coloration; edge detection; eye tracking; vision

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24152693      PMCID: PMC3871342          DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0501

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Lett        ISSN: 1744-9561            Impact factor:   3.703


  17 in total

1.  Inhibition of return.

Authors: 
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 20.229

2.  A breadth-first survey of eye-tracking applications.

Authors:  Andrew T Duchowski
Journal:  Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput       Date:  2002-11

3.  Development of object concepts in infancy: Evidence for early learning in an eye-tracking paradigm.

Authors:  Scott P Johnson; Dima Amso; Jonathan A Slemmer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-08-25       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  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 5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Coincident disruptive coloration.

Authors:  Innes C Cuthill; Aron Székely
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2009-02-27       Impact factor: 6.237

9.  Disruptive contrast in animal camouflage.

Authors:  Martin Stevens; Innes C Cuthill; Amy M M Windsor; Hannah J Walker
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-10-07       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Statistical patterns of visual search for hidden objects.

Authors:  Heitor F Credidio; Elisângela N Teixeira; Saulo D S Reis; André A Moreira; José S Andrade
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  18 in total

1.  Overcoming the detectability costs of symmetrical coloration.

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

2.  Background complexity and the detectability of camouflaged targets by birds and humans.

Authors:  Feng Xiao; Innes C Cuthill
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  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

4.  Rockpool gobies change colour for camouflage.

Authors:  Martin Stevens; Alice E Lown; Alexander M Denton
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Camouflage and individual variation in shore crabs (Carcinus maenas) from different habitats.

Authors:  Martin Stevens; Alice E Lown; Louisa E Wood
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-31       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Nest covering in plovers: How modifying the visual environment influences egg camouflage.

Authors:  Jolyon Troscianko; Jared Wilson-Aggarwal; Claire N Spottiswoode; Martin Stevens
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 2.912

7.  Quantifying camouflage: how to predict detectability from appearance.

Authors:  Jolyon Troscianko; John Skelhorn; Martin Stevens
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2017-01-06       Impact factor: 3.260

8.  Warning coloration can be disruptive: aposematic marginal wing patterning in the wood tiger moth.

Authors:  Atsushi Honma; Johanna Mappes; Janne K Valkonen
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 2.912

9.  Motion dazzle and the effects of target patterning on capture success.

Authors:  Anna E Hughes; Jolyon Troscianko; Martin Stevens
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2014-09-13       Impact factor: 3.260

10.  Improvement of individual camouflage through background choice in ground-nesting birds.

Authors:  Martin Stevens; Jolyon Troscianko; Jared K Wilson-Aggarwal; Claire N Spottiswoode
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 15.460

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.