How does an animal conceal itself from visual detection by other animals? This review paper seeks to identify general principles that may apply in this broad area. It considers mechanisms of visual encoding, of grouping and object encoding, and of search. In most cases, the evidence base comes from studies of humans or species whose vision approximates to that of humans. The effort is hampered by a relatively sparse literature on visual function in natural environments and with complex foraging tasks. However, some general constraints emerge as being potentially powerful principles in understanding concealment—a ‘constraint’ here means a set of simplifying assumptions. Strategies that disrupt the unambiguous encoding of discontinuities of intensity (edges), and of other key visual attributes, such as motion, are key here. Similar strategies may also defeat grouping and object-encoding mechanisms. Finally, the paper considers how we may understand the processes of search for complex targets in complex scenes. The aim is to provide a number of pointers towards issues, which may be of assistance in understanding camouflage and concealment, particularly with reference to how visual systems can detect the shape of complex, concealed objects.

We explore the relative utility of shape from shading and binocular disparity for depth perception. Ray-traced images either featured a smooth surface illuminated from above (shading-only) or were defined by small dots (disparity-only). Observers judged which of a pair of smoothly curved convex objects had most depth. The shading cue was around half as reliable as the rich disparity information for depth discrimination. Shading- and disparity-defined cues where combined by placing dots in the stimulus image, superimposed upon the shaded surface, resulting in veridical shading and binocular disparity. Independently varying the depth delivered by each channel allowed creation of conflicting disparity-defined and shading-defined depth. We manipulated the reliability of the disparity information by adding disparity noise. As noise levels in the disparity channel were increased, perceived depths and variances shifted toward those of the now more reliable shading cue. Several different models of cue combination were applied to the data. Perceived depths and variances were well predicted by a classic maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) model of cue integration, for all but one observer. We discuss the extent to which MLE is the most parsimonious model to account for observer performance.

Significance: Because the sun and sky are above us, natural illumination is directional and the cues from shading reveal shape and depth. However, many animals are darker on their backs and, over 100 years ago, it was proposed that this phenomenon was camouflage: countering the cues to shape that directional illumination creates. However, does this camouflage work in practice? We predicted the optimal countershading for different lighting conditions and tested this possibility with correspondingly patterned model “caterpillars” predated by birds in the wild. Predation rates varied with coloration and lighting in exactly the manner predicted. Such subtlety in the effects of countershading vindicates conclusions from prior evidence demonstrating stronger countershading in animals in more brightly lit habitats.