Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30603072›Full record

ArticleInterface focus2019

I see your false colours: how artificial stimuli appear to different animal viewers.

Mary Caswell Stoddard, Audrey E Miller, Harold N Eyster, Derya Akkaynak

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interface focus, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mary Caswell StoddardDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8264-3170
Audrey E MillerDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA.
Harold N EysterInstitute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4.
Derya AkkaynakDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6269-4795
Princeton University · USUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of artificially coloured stimuli, especially to test hypotheses about sexual selection and anti-predator defence, has been common in behavioural ecology since the pioneering work of Tinbergen. To investigate the effects of colour on animal behaviour, many researchers use paints, markers and dyes to modify existing colours or to add colour to synthetic models. Because colour perception varies widely across species, it is critical to account for the signal receiver's vision when performing colour manipulations. To explore this, we applied 26 typical coloration products to different types of avian feathers. Next, we measured the artificially coloured feathers using two complementary techniques-spectrophotometry and digital ultraviolet--visible photography-and modelled their appearance to mammalian dichromats (ferret, dog), trichromats (honeybee, human) and avian tetrachromats (hummingbird, blue tit). Overall, artificial colours can have dramatic and sometimes unexpected effects on the reflectance properties of feathers, often differing based on feather type. The degree to which an artificial colour differs from the original colour greatly depends on an animal's visual system. 'White' paint to a human is not 'white' to a honeybee or blue tit. Based on our analysis, we offer practical guidelines for reducing the risk of introducing unintended effects when using artificial colours in behavioural experiments.

Indexed as

animal colorationanimal visionartificial stimulisensory ecologyspectrophotometryultraviolet digital photography

Identifiers

PMID30603072
PMCPMC6304012
OpenAlexW2905495081

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.