Some comments on visual perception and the use of video playback in animal behavior studies
By L. J. Fleishman, John A. Endler. Acta Ethologica, 2000
111 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Abstract Video playback experiments are potentially powerful tools in behavioral research. A video screen mimics natural color, brightness, texture, and motion to humans (for which it was designed) because monitors stimulate human photoreceptors in approximately the same relative proportions as the stimuli that they mimic. Because most animals have vision that is very different from that of humans their cones may be stimulated very differently from ours, and an image that looks excellent to us may be unrecognizable to them, and vice versa. In this article we summarize how the simulation of a monitor works and the ways it can go wrong, using a bird and a fish model retina as examples. Finally we make some recommendations for minimizing some of these problems.
Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a75a0dbaf7edd6bf18831ffd1714dec07449664c
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Ecological Modeling
In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Citations in the corpus
- Digital video playback and visual communication in lizards (2002, background): “Problems may arise from differences in critical flicker-fusion frequency (D’Eath 1998; Fleishman & Endler 2000) or spectral sensitivity (Fleishman et al. 1998; Cuthill et al. 2000), the absence of some depth cues (D’Eath & Dawkins 1996; Zeil 2000), and the lack of interaction between subject and…”
- Faux frogs : multimodal signalling and the value of robotics in animal behaviour (2008, background): “Second, video playbacks have the potential to induce visual artefacts (e.g. pixilation, changes in temporal response, or chromatic shifts) that could lead to misinterpretations of the test animals’ responses (D’Eath 1998; Fleishman & Endler 2000; Trainor & Basolo 2000).”