Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28148834›Full record

ReviewBiology letters2017

Unravelling the illusion of flicker fusion.

Diana Umeton, Jenny C A Read, Candy Rowe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology letters, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Critical Flicker Fusion Frequency: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The key role of behaviour in animal camouflage.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Diana UmetonDepartment of Biology, Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Calabria, Cosenza, Italy diana.umeton@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7204-952X
Jenny C A ReadCentre for Behaviour and Evolution, Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE2 4HH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9029-5185
Candy RoweCentre for Behaviour and Evolution, Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE2 4HH, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5379-843X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For over 150 years, researchers have investigated the anti-predator function of animal patterns. However, this work has mainly focused on when prey remain still, and has only recently started to incorporate motion into the study of defensive coloration. As motion breaks camouflage, a new challenge is to understand how prey avoid predators while moving around their environment, and if a moving prey can ever be camouflaged. We propose that there is a solution to this, in that a 'flicker fusion effect' can change the appearance of the prey in the eyes of their predators to reduce the chances of initial detection. This effect occurs when a high contrast pattern blurs at speed, changing the appearance of the prey, which may help them better match their background. Despite being widely discussed in the literature, the flicker fusion effect is poorly described, there is no clear theoretical framework for testing how it might reduce predation, and the terminology describing it is, at best, rather confusing. Our review addresses these three key issues to enable researchers to formulate precise predictions about when the flicker fusion effect occurs, and to test how it can reduce predation.

Indexed as

Predatory BehaviorAnimalsColorFlicker FusionLocomotionVisual Perceptioncamouflagedazzle colorationdeimatic displayflicker fusion effectmotionstartle

Identifiers

PMID28148834
PMCPMC5326512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.