ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2020
In the corner of the eye: camouflaging motion in the peripheral visual field.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Starve and Shelter Availability on the Group Behavior of Two Freshwater Fish Species (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Background matching can reduce responsiveness of jumping spiders to stimuli in motion.The Journal of experimental biology · 2024Article
- Artificial light at night causes conflicting behavioural and morphological defence responses in a marine isopod.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Modelling Neurological Diseases in Large Animals: Criteria for Model Selection and Clinical Assessment.Cells · 2022Review
- Motion: enhancing signals and concealing cues.Biology open · 2021Article
- In the corner of the eye: camouflaging motion in the peripheral visual field.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2020Article
- Interactions between color and gloss in iridescent camouflage.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most animals need to move, and motion will generally break camouflage. In many instances, most of the visual field of a predator does not fall within a high-resolution area of the retina and so, when an undetected prey moves, that motion will often be in peripheral vision. We investigate how this can be exploited by prey, through different patterns of movement, to reduce the accuracy with which the predator can locate a cryptic prey item when it subsequently orients towards a target. The same logic applies for a prey species trying to localize a predatory threat. Using human participants as surrogate predators, tasked with localizing a target on peripherally viewed computer screens, we quantify the effects of movement (duration and speed) and target pattern. We show that, while motion is certainly detrimental to camouflage, should movement be necessary, some behaviours and surface patterns reduce that cost. Our data indicate that the phenotype that minimizes localization accuracy is unpatterned, having the mean luminance of the background, does not use a startle display prior to movement, and has short (below saccadic latency), fast movements.
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.