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
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.