Visual Search Processes in Camouflage Detection

Abstract

Recent models of visual information processing have been applied to the results of a search/ detection task involving photographic slides of concealed soldiers. It was postulated that since camouflaged persons could be regarded as examples of threshold items, automatic detection should not occur. Even for relatively low-load (easy) items, reaction times were slower than those that would have been expected had automatic detection occurred. The systematic increase in reaction time with task load implies that feature-integration processing was required to achieve target detection. In pointing towards a possible strategy for target detection using real-world stimuli, the results of this report may be important in the design and interpretation of camouflage detection trials.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alderson, J., and Overton, T. K. W. The use of disruptive patterning for combat clothing. Colchester, Essex: SCRDE/72/8. 1972.

Bailey, H. H. Target acquisition through visual recognition: An early model. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation,1972.

Biederman, I. , Mezzanotte, R. J. , Rabinowitz, J. C. , Francolini, C. M. , and Plude D. Detecting the unexpected in photointerpretation. Human Factors, 1981, 23, 153–164.

Bloomfield, J. R. Visual search with embedded targets: color and texture differences. Human Factors, 1979, 21, 317–330.

Bloomfield, J. R. , Graf, C. P. , and Graffunder, K. Visual factors in target disruption. Fort Belvoir, VA.U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Center, 1975.

Braaten, J. Dual textured camouflage evaluated. Armor, 1980, 89(4), 15–17.

Bruzga, A. P. Sniper suit (Defence trials Report No. 8/434). Canberra: D.S.T.O., 1980.

Freeman, L. O. , Jenkins, S. E. , and McNeil, A. Comparative trial of an experimental disruptive pattern for an Australian camouflage uniform. Maribyrnong: D.S.T.O., 1980.

Greef, A.O., and Smith, A.J. Evaluation of American patterned combat uniforms (SCRDE/3/73). Colchester, Essex: 1973.

10.

Lintern, G. T. Field dependence, intelligence and visual detection (Note 41). Melbourne: Department of Defence Systems, 1974.

11.

Nodine, C. F. , Carmody, D. P. , and Kundel, H. L. Searching for Nina. In J. W. Senders , D. F. Fisher , and R. A. Monty (Eds.), Eye movements and the higher psychological functions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1978.

12.

Schneider, W. , and Shiffrin, R. M. Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 1–66.

13.

Shiffrin, R. M. , and Schneider, W. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 127–190.

14.

Silbernagel, B. L. Using realistic sensor, target, and scene characteristics to develop a target acquisition model. Human Factors, 1982, 24, 321–328.

15.

Smith G., Skinner, D. R., and Jenkins, S. E. A preliminary comparison of the detectability of certain camouflage uniforms (D.S.T.O. Report No 593) Maribyrnong: 1973.

16.

Teichner, W. H. , and Mocharnuk, J. B. Visual search for complex targets. Human Factors, 1979, 21, 259–275.

17.

Treisman, A. M. , and Gelade, G. A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 1980, 12, 97–136.

18.

Whitehouse, T. J. Laboratory comparative trial of an experimental disruptive pattern for an Australian camouflage uniform. Maribyrnong: D.S.T.O., 1982.

19.

Williams, L. G. Target conspicuity and visual search. Human Factors, 1966, 9, 80–92.