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.

Juvenile cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) camouflage themselves by changing their body pattern according to the background. This behaviour can be used to investigate visual perception in these molluscs and may also give insight into camouflage design. Edge detection is an important aspect of vision, and here we compare the body patterns that cuttlefish produced in response to checkerboard backgrounds with responses to backgrounds that have the same spatial frequency power spectrum as the checkerboards, but randomized spatial phase. For humans, phase randomization removes visual edges. To describe the cuttlefish body patterns, we scored the level of expression of 20 separate pattern 'components', and then derived principal components (PCs) from these scores. After varimax rotation, the first component (PC1) corresponded closely to the so-called disruptive body pattern, and the second (PC2) to the mottle pattern. PC1 was predominantly expressed on checkerboards, and PC2 on phase-randomized backgrounds. Thus, cuttlefish probably have edge detectors that control the expression of disruptive pattern. Although the experiments used unnatural backgrounds, it seems probable that cuttlefish display disruptive camouflage when there are edges in the visual background caused by discrete objects such as pebbles. We discuss the implications of these findings for our understanding of disruptive camouflage.

The cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis, provides a fascinating opportunity to investigate the mechanisms of camouflage as it rapidly changes its body patterns in response to the visual environment. We investigated how edge information determines camouflage responses through the use of spatially high-pass filtered 'objects' and of isolated edges. We then investigated how the body pattern responds to objects defined by texture (second-order information) compared with those defined by luminance. We found that (i) edge information alone is sufficient to elicit the body pattern known as Disruptive, which is the camouflage response given when a whole object is present, and furthermore, isolated edges cause the same response; and (ii) cuttlefish can distinguish and respond to objects of the same mean luminance as the background. These observations emphasize the importance of discrete objects (bounded by edges) in the cuttlefish's choice of camouflage, and more generally imply that figure-ground segregation by cuttlefish is similar to that in vertebrates, as might be predicted by their need to produce effective camouflage against vertebrate predators.

No abstract