ArticlePloS one2016
On the Hunt: Searching for Poorly Defined Camouflaged Targets.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Expert camouflage-breakers can accurately localize search targets.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As camouflaged targets share visual characteristics with the environment within which they are embedded, searchers rarely have access to a perfect visual template of such targets. Instead, they must rely on less specific representations to guide search. Although search for camouflaged and non-specified targets have both received attention in the literature, to date they have not been explored in a combined context. Here we introduce a new paradigm for characterizing behavior during search for camouflaged targets in natural scenes, while also exploring how the fidelity of the target template affects search processes. Search scenes were created from forest images, with targets a distortion (varied size) of that image at a random location. In Experiment 1 a preview of the target was provided; in Experiment 2 there was no preview. No differences were found between experiments on nearly all measures. Generally, reaction times and accuracy improved with familiarity on the task (more so for small targets). Analysis of eye movements indicated that performance benefits were related to improvements in both Search and Target Verification time. Combined, our data suggest that search for camouflaged targets can be improved over a short time-scale, even when targets are poorly defined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.