Species recognition in the blackbordered damselfish Dascyllus marginatus (Rüppell): An evaluation of computer-animated playback techniques

Shashar, Nadav; Rosenthal, Gil G.; Caras, Tamir; Manor, Shiri; Katzir, Gadi

doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2004.12.037

Cited by 15 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Schluessel and Bleckmann 2005;Odling-Smee et al 2006;Rodriguez et al 2006;Sovrano et al 2007) to just name a few. Several studies were also conducted on Dascyllus aruanus and other species within the genus, assessing visual recognition of predators and conspecifics (Katzir 1981;Shashar et al 2005;Karplus et al 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Shashar et al 2005;Baldauf et al 2009;Gori et al 2014;Nakayasu and Watanabe 2014). Additionally, there are only a handful of studies assessing movement perception in fish in general (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both study species live in brightly lit, clear-water environments, are diurnally active and rely on vision for a wide range of behaviours (Katzir 1981;Keenleyside 1991;Knight and Turner 1999;Carleton et al 2000;Shashar et al 2005;Karplus et al 2006;Carleton 2009). In nature, most relevant stimuli such as those elicited by prey, predators or conspecifics involve movement; in theory, species in general should therefore benefit from perceiving motion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Perception and discrimination of movement and biological motion patterns in fish

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vision is of primary importance for many fish species, as is the recognition of movement. With the exception of one study, assessing the influence of conspecific movement on shoaling behaviour, the perception of biological motion in fish had not been studied in a cognitive context. The aim of the present study was therefore to assess the discrimination abilities of two teleost species in regard to simple and complex movement patterns of dots and objects, including biological motion patterns using point and point-light displays (PDs and PLDs). In two-alternative forced-choice experiments, in which choosing the designated positive stimulus was food-reinforced, fish were first tested in their ability to distinguish the video of a stationary black dot on a light background from the video of a moving black dot presented at different frequencies and amplitudes. While all fish succeeded in learning the task, performance declined with decreases in either or both parameters. In subsequent tests, cichlids and damselfish distinguished successfully between the videos of two dots moving at different speeds and amplitudes, between two moving dot patterns (sinus vs. expiring sinus) and between animated videos of two moving organisms (trout vs. eel). Transfer tests following the training of the latter showed that fish were unable to identify the positive stimulus (trout) by means of its PD alone, thereby indicating that the ability of humans to spontaneously recognize an organism based on its biological motion may not be present in fish. All participating individuals successfully discriminated between two PDs and two PLDs after a short period of training, indicating that biological motions presented in form of PLDs are perceived and can be distinguished. Results were the same for the presentation of dark dots on a light background and light dots on a dark background.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Shashar et al 2005;Baldauf et al 2009;Gori et al 2014;Nakayasu and Watanabe 2014). Additionally, there are only a handful of studies assessing movement perception in fish in general (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perception and discrimination of movement and biological motion patterns in fish

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Computer‐editing of visual signals provides the opportunity to manipulate single or combined visual stimuli selectively, while other potentially confounding variables remain constant (e.g. Shashar et al. 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical Restrictions of Computer‐Manipulated Visual Stimuli and Display Units for Studying Animal Behaviour

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Computer‐manipulated visual stimuli are a well‐established tool to experimentally study animal behaviour. They provide the opportunity to manipulate single or combined visual stimuli selectively, while other potentially confounding variables remain constant. A wide array of different presentation methods of artificial stimuli has been used in recent research. Furthermore, a wide range of basic hardware and software has been used to conduct experiments. The outcomes of experimental trials using computer‐manipulated visual stimuli differed among studies. Failing or contradictory results were mostly discussed in a behavioural and ecological context. However, the results sometimes may be basically flawed due to methodological traps in the experimental design. Based on characteristics and restrictions of technical standards, we discuss which kinds of computer stimuli and visual display units are available today and their suitability for experimental trials when studying animal behaviour. A computer‐manipulated stimulus displayed by a certain visual display unit may be accurate to investigate behaviour in a specific species, if various preconditions are met. However, simply due to technical characteristics of the visual display unit, the set‐up may be unsuitable for other test species. Thus, future research should critically apply the included technique, with respect to both the intended kind of stimulus and the species under investigation. If these preconditions are met, computer‐manipulated stimuli provide a high degree of standardization and the potential to display visual signals without losing a crucial amount of information from the native data.

show abstract

“…However, most previous studies dealing with visual cognitive abilities in fish investigated only stationary stimuli (e.g., Arthur & Levin, 2001;Colwill, Raymond, Ferreira, & Escudero, 2005;Darmaillacq, Dickel, Rahmani, & Shashar, 2011;Frech, Vogtsberger, & Neumeyer, 2012;Gierszewski, Bleckmann, & Schluessel, 2013;Schluessel, Fricke, & Bleckmann, 2012;Siebeck, Litherland, & Wallis, 2009;Sovrano & Bisazza, 2008), while few included the presentation of moving objects (e.g., Baldauf, Kullmann, Thünken, Winter, & Bakker, 2009;Gori, Agrillo, Dadda, & Bisazza, 2014;Nakayasu & Watanabe, 2014;Schluessel, Kortekamp, Cortes, Klein, & Bleckmann, 2015;Shashar, Rosenthal, Caras, Manor, & Katzir, 2005). In a recent study by Schluessel et al (2015), Dascyllus aruanus and Pseudotropheus zebra distinguished successfully between two circles moving at different velocities and amplitudes, moving dot patterns as well as moving objects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

World in Motion: Perception and Discrimination of Movement in Juvenile Grey Bamboo Sharks (Chiloscyllium griseum)

Fuss¹,

Russnak²,

Stehr³

et al. 2017

AB&C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Species recognition in the blackbordered damselfish Dascyllus marginatus (Rüppell): An evaluation of computer-animated playback techniques

Cited by 15 publications

References 23 publications

Perception and discrimination of movement and biological motion patterns in fish

Perception and discrimination of movement and biological motion patterns in fish

Technical Restrictions of Computer‐Manipulated Visual Stimuli and Display Units for Studying Animal Behaviour

World in Motion: Perception and Discrimination of Movement in Juvenile Grey Bamboo Sharks (Chiloscyllium griseum)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About