Skip to content
NatureHQ

Study

Color blindness and contrast perception in cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) determined by a visual sensorimotor assay

Mäthger, Lydia M.; Barbosa, Alexandra; Miner, Simon; Hanlon, Roger T.

Vision Research, 2006

Peer-reviewedcontrolled laboratory experimentlaboratory

Used the animal’s own camouflage response as the measurement: cuttlefish were placed on backgrounds whose colour and intensity contrast were varied independently, and the body pattern they produced was scored. If the animals could see colour, patterns should respond to colour differences that carry no intensity difference.

Studied in
Sepia officinalis
Sample size
cuttlefish tested on backgrounds varying in colour and contrast

Cuttlefish responded to intensity contrast and not to colour contrast, consistent with a single visual pigment and with colour blindness in the conventional sense.

What it means

The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.

How the authors put it

These animals achieve their camouflage without colour vision as it is usually measured, matching backgrounds on brightness and pattern rather than on hue.

How NatureHQ reads it

One half of the best unresolved puzzle in this subject. Cephalopods produce colour matches that look excellent to us, and by this assay they cannot see colour. NatureHQ presents the puzzle rather than either of the tidy resolutions, because neither is established.

  • A behavioural assay: it shows the camouflage response does not track colour, which is strong evidence about that response rather than a direct measurement of perception.
  • One species, and proposals for unconventional colour discrimination are not tested by this design.
  • Using camouflage as the answer sheet

    Cuttlefish match backgrounds convincingly. Can they see colour at all — and how would you ask an animal that cannot be interviewed?

What this study is used for on NatureHQ

One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.

Published by: Elsevier journalsPublished in an Elsevier journal.

doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2005.09.035

Checked against Crossref on 2026-09-28, and they agree on the title, the authors and the year.

NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-09-03.