10.5061/DRYAD.VC60Q
Hall, Joanna R.
University of Bristol
Cuthill, Innes C.
University of Bristol
Baddeley, Roland
University of Bristol
Shohet, Adam J.
Qinetiq (United Kingdom)
Scott-Samuel, Nicholas E.
University of Bristol
Data from: Camouflage, detection and identification of moving targets
Dryad
dataset
2013
2013-03-21T18:34:55Z
2013-03-21T18:34:55Z
en
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.0064
18011 bytes
1
CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication
Nearly all research on camouflage has investigated its effectiveness for
concealing stationary objects. However, animals have to move, and patterns
that only work when the subject is static will heavily constrain
behaviour. We investigated the effects of different camouflages on the
three stages of predation—detection, identification and capture—in a
computer-based task with humans. An initial experiment tested seven
camouflage strategies on static stimuli. In line with previous literature,
background-matching and disruptive patterns were found to be most
successful. Experiment 2 showed that if stimuli move, an isolated moving
object on a stationary background cannot avoid detection or capture
regardless of the type of camouflage. Experiment 3 used an identification
task and showed that while camouflage is unable to slow detection or
capture, camouflaged targets are harder to identify than uncamouflaged
targets when similar background objects are present. The specific details
of the camouflage patterns have little impact on this effect. If one has
to move, camouflage cannot impede detection; but if one is surrounded by
similar targets (e.g. other animals in a herd, or moving background
distractors), then camouflage can slow identification. Despite previous
assumptions, motion does not entirely ‘break’ camouflage.
Participant median response timesData are median response times for each
participant in 3 visual psychophysics experiments testing 7 different
camouflage strategies and a plain grey control. Exp 1 involved a single
stationary target in three sizes and Exp 2 involved a single moving target
in three sizes. The same participants were used in Exp 1 & 2 and
each completed all conditions. Exp 3 involved an elliptical target and
circular distractors which could be plain or match the target. Each
participant completed all conditions.Data summary for paper.xlsx