Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34699727›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2021

A shark's eye view: testing the 'mistaken identity theory' behind shark bites on humans.

Laura A Ryan, David J Slip, Lucille Chapuis, Shaun P Collin, Enrico Gennari, Jan M Hemmi, Martin J How, Charlie Huveneers, Victor M Peddemors, Louise Tosetto and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors.

Laura A RyanDepartment of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales 2109, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3436-2048
David J SlipTaronga Conservation Society Australia, Bradley's Head Road, Mosman, New South Wales 2088, Australia.
Lucille ChapuisBiosciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QD, UK.
Shaun P CollinSchool of Life Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3086, Australia.
Enrico GennariOceans Research Institute, Mossel Bay 6500, South Africa.
Jan M HemmiSchool of Biological Sciences and The UWA Oceans Institute, M092, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4629-9362
Martin J HowSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5135-8828
Charlie HuveneersCollege of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042, Australia.
Victor M PeddemorsNew South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Sydney Institute of Marine Science, Mosman, New South Wales 2088, Australia.
Louise TosettoDepartment of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales 2109, Australia.
Nathan S HartDepartment of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales 2109, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Shark bites on humans are rare but are sufficiently frequent to generate substantial public concern, which typically leads to measures to reduce their frequency. Unfortunately, we understand little about why sharks bite humans. One theory for bites occurring at the surface, e.g. on surfers, is that of mistaken identity, whereby sharks mistake humans for their typical prey (pinnipeds in the case of white sharks). This study tests the mistaken identity theory by comparing video footage of pinnipeds, humans swimming and humans paddling surfboards, from the perspective of a white shark viewing these objects from below. Videos were processed to reflect how a shark's retina would detect the visual motion and shape cues. Motion cues of humans swimming, humans paddling surfboards and pinnipeds swimming did not differ significantly. The shape of paddled surfboards and human swimmers was also similar to that of pinnipeds with their flippers abducted. The difference in shape between pinnipeds with abducted versus adducted flippers was bigger than between pinnipeds with flippers abducted and surfboards or human swimmers. From the perspective of a white shark, therefore, neither visual motion nor shape cues allow an unequivocal visual distinction between pinnipeds and humans, supporting the mistaken identity theory behind some bites.

Indexed as

Bites and StingsSharksAnimalsHumansSwimmingobject motionprey detectionshape discriminationshark attackshark vision

Identifiers

PMID34699727
PMCPMC8548079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.