How visual edge features influence cuttlefish camouflage patterning

Vision Research

Volumn 83, Issue , 2013, Pages 40-47

  Chiao, Chuan Chin ^a,b   Ulmer, Kimberly M ^a   Siemann, Liese A ^a   Buresch, Kendra C ^a   Chubb, Charles ^a,c   Hanlon, Roger T ^a  

^a MARINE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL TSING HUA UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Disruptive body pattern; Edge perception; Line terminator; Sepia officinalis; Spatial frequency

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; CAMOUFLAGE PATTERNING; CONTRAST; CONTRAST ENERGY; CONTRAST POLARITY; CONTRAST STRENGTH; CONTROLLED STUDY; CUTTLEFISH; EDGE FRAGMENT; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SPATIAL FREQUENCY DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL EDGE FEATURE; VISUAL STIMULATION; VISUAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; BODY PATTERNING; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DECAPODIFORMES; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84875641159     PISSN: 00426989     EISSN: 18785646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2013.03.001     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Barbosa A., Mäthger L.M., Buresch K.C., Kelly J., Chubb C., Chiao C.-C., et al. Cuttlefish camouflage: The effects of substrate contrast and size in evoking uniform, mottle or disruptive body patterns. Vision Research 2008, 48:1242-1253.
2. Barth E., Zetzsche C., Rentschler I. Intrinsic two-dimensional features as textons. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 1998, 15:1723-1732.
3. Bergen J.R., Adelson E.H. Visual texture segmentation based on energy measures. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 1988, 3:98-101.
4. Blakemore C., Campbell F.W. On the existence of neurons in the human visual system selectively responsive to the orientation and size of retinal images. Journal of Physiology 1969, 203:237-260.
5. Campbell F.W., Robson J.G. Application of Fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings. Journal of Physiology 1968, 197:551-566.
6. Carandini M., Heeger D.J. Normalization as a canonical neural computation. Nature Review Neuroscience 2011, 13:51-62.
7. Chiao C.-C., Chubb C., Buresch K., Siemann L., Hanlon R.T. The scaling effects of substrate texture on camouflage patterning in cuttlefish. Vision Research 2009, 49:1647-1656.
8. Chiao C.-C., Chubb C., Hanlon R.T. Interactive effects of size, contrast, intensity and configuration of background objects in evoking disruptive camouflage in cuttlefish. Vision Research 2007, 47:2223-2235.
9. Chiao C.-C., Hanlon R.T. Cuttlefish camouflage: Visual perception of size, contrast and number of white squares on artificial checkerboard substrata initiates disruptive coloration. Journal of Experimental Biology 2001, 204:2119-2125.
10. Chiao C.-C., Hanlon R.T. Cuttlefish cue visually on area - not shape or aspect ratio - of light objects in the substrate to produce disruptive body patterns for camouflage. Biological Bulletin 2001, 201:269-270.
11. Chiao C.-C., Kelman E.J., Hanlon R.T. Disruptive body patterning of cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) requires visual information regarding edges and contrast of objects in natural substrate backgrounds. Biological Bulletin 2005, 208:7-11.
12. Chubb C., Sperling G. Drift-balanced random stimuli: A general basis for studying non-Fourier motion perception. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 1988, 5:1986-2007.
13. Cott H.B. Adaptive coloration in animals 1940, Methuen & Co., Ltd, London.
14. DeAngelis G.C., Freeman R.D., Ohzawa I. Length and width tuning of neurons in the cat's primary visual cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology 1994, 71:347-374.
15. Diaconis P., Freedman D. On the statistics of vision: The Julesz conjecture. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1981, 24:112-138.
16. Gilbert C.D. Laminar differences in receptive field properties of cells in cat primary visual cortex. Journal of Physiology 1977, 268:391-421.
17. Hanlon R.H. Cephalopod dynamic camouflage. Current Biology 2007, 17:R400-404.
18. Hanlon R.T., Chiao C.-C., Mäthger L.M., Buresch K.C., Barbosa A., Allen J.J., et al. Rapid adaptive camouflage in cephalopods. Animal camouflage: Mechanisms and functions 2011, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. M. Stevens, S. Merilaita (Eds.).
19. Hanlon R.T., Messenger J.B. Adaptive coloration in young cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis L.): The morphology and development of body patterns and their relation to behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 1988, 320:437-487.
20. Holmes W. The colour changes and colour patterns of Sepia officinalis L. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London A 1940, 110:2-35.
21. Hubel D.H., Wiesel T.N. Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex. Journal of Physiology 1968, 195:215-243.
22. Julesz B. Visual pattern discrimination. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 1962, IT-8:84-92.
23. Julesz B. Experiments in the visual perception of texture. Scientific American 1975, 4:34-43.
24. Julesz B., Gilbert E.N., Victor J.D. Visual discrimination of textures with identical third-order statistics. Biological Cybernetics 1978, 31:137-140.
25. Kato H., Bishop P.O., Orban G.A. Hypercomplex and simple/complex cell classifications in cat striate cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology 1978, 41:1071-1095.
26. Kelman E.J., Baddeley R.J., Shohet A.J., Osorio D. Perception of visual texture and the expression of disruptive camouflage by the cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. Proceedings of the Biological Sciences 2007, 274:1369-1375.
27. Kelman E.J., Osorio D., Baddeley R.J. A review of cuttlefish camouflage and object recognition and evidence for depth perception. Journal of Experimental Biology 2008, 211:1757-1763.
28. Mäthger L.M., Chiao C.-C., Barbosa A., Buresch K.C., Kaye S., Hanlon R.T. Disruptive coloration elicited on controlled natural substrates in cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. Journal of Experimental Biology 2007, 210:2657-2666.
29. Marshall N.J., Messenger J.B. Colour-blind camouflage. Nature 1996, 382:408-409.
30. Nordström K., O'Carroll D.C. Feature detection and the hypercomplex property in insects. Trends in Neuroscience 2009, 32(7):383-391.
31. Orban G.A., Kato H., Bishop P.O. Dimensions and properties of end-zone inhibitory areas in receptive fields of hypercomplex cells in cat striate cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology 1979, 42:833-849.
32. Orban G.A., Kato H., Bishop P.O. End-zone region in receptive fields of hypercomplex and other striate neurons in the cat. Journal of Neurophysiology 1979, 42:818-832.
33. Robson J.G. Spatial and temporal contrast sensitivity function of the visual system. Journal of the Optical Society of America 1966, 56:1141-1142.
34. Stevens M., Merilaita S. Defining disruptive coloration and distinguishing its functions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 2009, 364:481-488.
35. Sutter A., Beck J., Graham N. Contrast and spatial variables in texture segregation: testing a simple spatial-frequency channels model. Perception & Psychophysics 1989, 46:312-332.
36. Troscianko T., Benton C.P., Lovell P.G., Tolhurst D.J., Pizlo Z. Camouflage and visual perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 2009, 364:449-461.
37. Watson A.B., Ahumada A.J.J., Farrell J.E. Window of visibility: A psychophysical theory of fidelity in time-sampled visual motion displays. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 1986, 3:300-307.
38. Yamane S., Maske R., Bishop P.O. Properties of end-zone inhibition of hypercomplex cells in cat striate cortex. Experimental Brain Research 1985, 60:200-203.
39. Zylinski S., Darmaillacq A.S., Shashar N. Visual interpolation for contour completion by the European cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) and its use in dynamic camouflage. Proceedings of the Biological Sciences 2012, 279:2386-2390.
40. Zylinski S., Osorio D., Shohet A.J. Edge detection and texture classification by cuttlefish. Journal of Vision 2009, 9:1-10.
41. Zylinski S., Osorio D., Shohet A.J. Perception of edges and visual texture in the camouflage of the common cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 2009, 364:439-448.