Higher priority in processing for task-irrelevant salient stimuli: Explained by a parallel interactive model

Jingling, Li; Yeh, Su‐Ling; Hsiao, Chuan-Heng; Hu, Chi-Ming

doi:10.1167/4.8.637

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dazzle markings, therefore, may be most effective when of low contrast. In addition, high-contrast patches and edges might present positional cues to detect and track motion [25]. In our study, all stimuli were achromatic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Motion dazzle and camouflage as distinct anti-predator defenses

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCamouflage patterns that hinder detection and/or recognition by antagonists are widely studied in both human and animal contexts. Patterns of contrasting stripes that purportedly degrade an observer's ability to judge the speed and direction of moving prey ('motion dazzle') are, however, rarely investigated. This is despite motion dazzle having been fundamental to the appearance of warships in both world wars and often postulated as the selective agent leading to repeated patterns on many animals (such as zebra and many fish, snake, and invertebrate species). Such patterns often appear conspicuous, suggesting that protection while moving by motion dazzle might impair camouflage when stationary. However, the relationship between motion dazzle and camouflage is unclear because disruptive camouflage relies on high-contrast markings. In this study, we used a computer game with human subjects detecting and capturing either moving or stationary targets with different patterns, in order to provide the first empirical exploration of the interaction of these two protective coloration mechanisms.ResultsMoving targets with stripes were caught significantly less often and missed more often than targets with camouflage patterns. However, when stationary, targets with camouflage markings were captured less often and caused more false detections than those with striped patterns, which were readily detected.ConclusionsOur study provides the clearest evidence to date that some patterns inhibit the capture of moving targets, but that camouflage and motion dazzle are not complementary strategies. Therefore, the specific coloration that evolves in animals will depend on how the life history and ontogeny of each species influence the trade-off between the costs and benefits of motion dazzle and camouflage.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%