Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 893

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Animal colour vision — behavioural tests and physiological concepts

Open access
KELBER, ALMUT, VOROBYEV, MISHA, OSORIO, DANIEL·2003·Biological Reviews

Abstract

Over a century ago workers such as J. Lubbock and K. von Frisch developed behavioural criteria for establishing that non‐human animals see colour. Many animals in most phyla have since then been shown to have colour vision. Colour is used for specific behaviours, such as phototaxis and object recognition, while other behaviours such as motion detection are colour blind. Having established the existence of colour vision, research focussed on the question of how many spectral types of photoreceptors are involved. Recently, data on photoreceptor spectral sensitivities have been combined with behavioural experiments and physiological models to study systematically the next logical question: ‘what neural interactions underlie colour vision ?‘This review gives an overview of the methods used to study animal colour vision, and discusses how quantitative modelling can suggest how photoreceptor signals are combined and compared to allow for the discrimination of biologically relevant stimuli.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1464793102005985

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
KELBER, A., VOROBYEV, M., & OSORIO, D.
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-02
Volume
78
Issue
1
Pages
81-118
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
  • 1469-185X
OpenAlex
W2164173165
Cited by
893
References
1
FWCI
1.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.