Featured Post from Aston University

Aston University study reveals the illusion of ‘dazzle’ paint on World War I battleships

Mar 17, 2025

4 min

Dr Sam Strong


CaptionResizeWrap TextRemove
The Zealandia in wartime dazzle paint. Image: Australian National Maritime Museum on The Commons


Geometric ‘dazzle’ camouflage was used on ships in WWI to confuse enemy onlookers as to the direction and speed of the ship

Timothy Meese and Samantha Strong reanalysed historic data from 1919 and found that the ‘horizon effect’ is more effective for confusion

When viewing a ship at distance, it often appears to be travelling along the horizon, regardless of its actual direction of travel – this is the ‘horizon effect’.


A new analysis of 105-year-old data on the effectiveness of ‘dazzle’ camouflage on battleships in World War I by Aston University researchers Professor Tim Meese and Dr Samantha Strong has found that while dazzle had some effect, the ‘horizon effect’ had far more influence when it came to confusing the enemy.


During World War I, navies experimented with painting ships with ‘dazzle’ camouflage – geometric shapes and stripes – in an attempt to confuse U-boat captains as to the speed and direction of travel of the ships and make them harder to attack.


The separate ‘horizon effect’ is when a person looks at a ship in the distance, and it appears to be travelling along the horizon, regardless of its actual direction of travel. Ships travelling at an angle of up to 25° relative to the horizon appear to be travelling directly along it. Even with those at a greater angle to the horizon, onlookers significantly underestimate the angle.


Despite widespread use of dazzle camouflage, it was not until 1919 that a proper, quantitative study was carried out, by MIT naval architecture and marine engineering student Leo Blodgett for his degree thesis. He painted model ships in dazzle patterns and placed them in a mechanical test theatre with a periscope, like those used by U-boat captains, to measure how much onlookers’ estimations of the ships’ direction of travel deviated from their actual direction of travel.


Professor Meese and Dr Strong realised that while the data collected by Blodgett was useful, his methods of experimental design fell short of modern standards. He’d found that dazzle camouflage worked, but the Aston University team suspected that dazzle alone was not responsible for the results seen, cleaned the data and designed new analysis to better understand what it really shows.


Dr Strong, a senior lecturer at Aston University’s School of Optometry, said:


“It's necessary to have a control condition to draw firm conclusions, and Blodgett's report of his own control was too vague to be useful. We ran our own version of the experiment using photographs from his thesis and compared the results across the original dazzle camouflage versions and versions with the camouflage edited out. Our experiment worked well. Both types of ships produced the horizon effect, but the dazzle imposed an additional twist.”


If the errors made by the onlookers in the perceived direction of travel of the ship were entirely due to the ‘twist’ on perspective caused by dazzle paintwork, the bow, or front, of the ship, would always be seen to twist away from its true direction. However, Professor Meese and Dr Strong instead showed that when the true direction was pointing away from the observer, the bow was often perceived to twist towards the observer instead. Their detailed analysis showed a small effect of twist from the dazzle camouflage but a much larger one from the horizon effect. Sometimes these effects were in competition, sometimes in harmony.


Professor Meese, a professor of vision science at the School of Optometry, said:


“We knew already about the twist and horizon effects from contemporary computer-based work with colleagues at Abertay University. The remarkable finding here is that these same two effects, in similar proportions, are clearly evident in participants familiar with the art of camouflage deception, including a lieutenant in a European navy. This adds considerable credibility to our earlier conclusions by showing that the horizon effect – which has nothing to do with dazzle – was not overcome by those best placed to know better.


“This is a clear case where visual perception is more powerful than knowledge. In fact, back in the dazzle days, the horizon effect was not identified at all, and Blodgett's measurements of perceptual bias were attributed entirely to the camouflage, deceiving the deceivers.”


Professor Meese and Dr Strong say that more work is required to fully understand how dazzle might have increased perceptual uncertainty of direction and speed but also the geometry behind torpedo-aiming tactics that might have supported some countermeasures.


Visit https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695241312316 to read the full paper in i-Perception.

Connect with:
Dr Sam Strong

Dr Sam Strong

Senior Lecturer, Optometry

Dr Strong is interested in visual perception (specifically motion perception) and basic optics.

Visual PerceptionMotion PerceptionOptic FlowOpticsVisual Optics
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease featured image

3 min

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease

An international clinical trial involving Aston University researchers has challenged long held assumptions about how brittle bone disease is treated in adults, after finding that substantially increasing bone density did not reduce the risk of fractures. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), examined whether a two stage treatment using the bone building drug teriparatide followed by the bone preserving drug zoledronic acid could reduce fractures in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta, often referred to as brittle bone disease, a rare genetic condition that causes bones to break easily throughout life. Researchers followed 349 adults treated at 27 specialist centres across the UK and Europe. While the treatment led to clear increases in bone density in the spine and hip, fracture rates were no lower than among patients receiving standard care, suggesting that bone quality may matter more than bone density alone in preventing fractures in people with the condition. The findings underline a key distinction between brittle bone disease and more common bone conditions such as osteoporosis, where increasing bone density is known to reduce fracture risk. In osteogenesis imperfecta, the study suggests that bones can become denser without becoming less likely to break, indicating that the underlying quality and structure of bone tissue may play a greater role in fracture risk than density alone. Dr Zaki Hassan Smith, an endocrinologist at Aston Medical School who contributed to the research, said: “This study shows that in osteogenesis imperfecta, simply increasing bone density doesn’t necessarily translate into fewer fractures. That’s important, because it tells us that the disease is more complex than what we see on a scan. The findings help shift the focus towards understanding bone quality and how bones behave in real life, which is essential if we are to develop more effective treatments that genuinely reduce harm for patients.” Osteogenesis imperfecta is a genetic condition that affects collagen, leaving bones fragile and prone to fracture throughout life. There is currently no licensed treatment specifically approved to prevent fractures in adults with the condition, and patients often experience repeated fractures, chronic pain and long term disability. The trial tested a sequential treatment strategy commonly used in osteoporosis, where a bone building drug is followed by a treatment designed to preserve gains in bone strength. Although this approach successfully increased bone density in people with osteogenesis imperfecta, it did not reduce fracture rates, suggesting that treatment strategies effective in osteoporosis may not directly translate to rare bone diseases. Researchers did observe improvements in some quality of life measures among participants receiving the treatment, including reduced pain interference and improved mobility. However, fracture prevention remained unchanged, reinforcing the need for new approaches that target the fundamental properties of bone in osteogenesis imperfecta rather than density alone. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Aston University contributed clinical and academic expertise through Aston Medical School as part of the large international collaboration, which involved specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh, with Aston University contributing clinical and academic expertise as part of a wider international collaboration involving multiple specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The research was funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Researchers say the findings provide important guidance for future research, helping to steer efforts towards treatments that focus on bone quality, strength and resilience in everyday life. They also highlight the value of large scale clinical trials in rare diseases, where learning what does not reduce harm is an essential step towards better care. The paper, Teriparatide Plus Zoledronic Acid for Osteogenesis Imperfecta, is published in JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.6889

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink featured image

3 min

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink

After five weeks of fieldwork across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Aston University researcher Dr Komal Raj Aryal is calling for a more locally grounded approach to resilience and post-disaster recovery in one of the world’s most hazard-prone regions. What happens after the headlines fade from a disaster? That question sits at the heart of new field research led by Dr Komal Raj Aryal, Lecturer in Crisis and Disaster Management at Aston Business School. After returning from a five-week research visit across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Dr Aryal says the evidence points to a troubling reality: many communities remain highly vulnerable long after major recovery programmes are supposed to have helped them rebuild. The trip brought together field visits, stakeholder consultations and community observations linked to ongoing UKRI, NERC and ISPF-supported research on earthquake risk, disaster governance, resilience and post-disaster recovery in the Himalayan region. The aim was not only to understand current conditions, but to ask why repeated losses continue despite years of international development assistance, scientific research and investment. Across the region, the research found that resilience is being undermined by a combination of persistent governance challenges, fragmented institutions, weak local preparedness systems, livelihood insecurity and mounting environmental pressures. In other words, recovery is not simply about rebuilding infrastructure; it is about whether communities are genuinely better equipped to cope with the next shock. This challenge is especially striking in places still living with the legacy of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, where long-term vulnerabilities remain visible despite the scale of international support directed towards recovery and reconstruction. Reflecting on his findings, Dr Aryal said: “One of the most striking observations from the field is that many communities affected by the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes continue to face similar vulnerabilities today, despite significant international support allocated for recovery and reconstruction. This raises important questions about how disaster recovery is planned, implemented, and sustained over time.” The fieldwork also highlighted the growing complexity of future disaster risks in the Himalayas. Large-scale earthquakes do not exist in isolation; they interact with environmental degradation, cascading hazards, climate-related stresses and rapid urbanisation in fragile mountain settings. He added: “The Himalayan region is entering a period of growing uncertainty where environmental change, socio-economic inequality, weak governance systems, and seismic risks are becoming increasingly interconnected. There is an urgent need to rethink conventional development approaches and invest more seriously in locally grounded, community-centred resilience strategies.” For Aston University, this work reflects a broader commitment to international research on disaster risk reduction, resilience governance and humanitarian response across South Asia. Aston researchers are working with government agencies, local authorities, universities, emergency responders and humanitarian organisations to strengthen evidence-based approaches to preparedness and recovery. The findings feed into wider international debates about sustainable development, climate resilience, risk communication and the future of disaster governance in vulnerable mountain regions. They also underline the importance of moving beyond short-term recovery models towards approaches that are participatory, practical and rooted in local knowledge. Dr Aryal’s research emphasises the value of integrating community knowledge, participatory governance, youth engagement and long-term livelihood security into resilience planning. As future collaborations and policy discussions develop, these themes are likely to be central to how the region prepares for the risks ahead. The recent fieldwork is expected to inform future international research partnerships, policy dialogue and resilience-focused initiatives between the UK and South Asian partners.

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit featured image

2 min

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit

Greenland episode exposed UK’s lack of effective response to economic coercion from allies Research shows tariff retaliation would have cost the average UK household up to £324 per year Economists say China visit is “portfolio risk management” – diversification reduces vulnerability. The Prime Minister’s visit to China – the first by a British PM since 2018 – is an opportunity to reduce the UK’s vulnerability to economic coercion, according to new research from Aston University. A policy paper from Aston Business School’s Centre for Business Prosperity analyses the January 2026 Greenland tariff episode, when President Trump threatened and then withdrew tariffs on eight European countries. The researchers found that the UK had no good options: retaliation would have made Britain worse off, while absorbing the tariffs left Europe without credible deterrence. Director of the centre for business prosperity, Professor Jun Du, said: “The Greenland episode was a wake-up call. When your principal security ally threatens economic coercion, the old assumptions about who is safe and who is dangerous no longer hold. “The PM’s China visit should be framed as portfolio risk management – building diversified trading relationships that reduce the UK’s exposure to any single partner. Just as investors don’t put all their money in one stock, countries shouldn’t put all their trade into one basket. A UK with multiple strong partnerships is harder to pressure, whether the pressure comes from Washington or Beijing.” The research found that coordinated UK–EU tariff retaliation would have cost British households up to £324 per year – the worst outcome modelled. But the authors argue that Europe has untapped leverage elsewhere: the US runs a €148 billion annual services surplus with the EU, and mutual investment exceeds €5.3 trillion. Associate professor of economics and co-author, Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo, said: “Tariff retaliation fails because it hurts consumers and distorts the economy – the retaliator suffers similarly to the target. But Europe has cards it isn’t playing. Services, investment screening, and regulatory access are pressure points where Europe can respond effectively.” UK exports to China fell by 10.4% in the year to Q2 2025, with goods exports down 23.1% – the sharpest decline among major trading partners. The researchers argue that this closes off the UK’s largest alternative market at precisely the moment US reliability is in question. The paper identifies three priorities for UK policy: Recognise the permanent incentives behind US tariffs. US tariff revenue hit $264 billion in 2025. Trade negotiations alone cannot resolve revenue-driven policy. Build UK–EU coordination on non-tariff instruments. Services, investment, procurement, and regulation offer leverage that tariffs do not. Treat China engagement as portfolio risk management. Concentration in any single market creates vulnerability. Diversification is not about picking sides – it’s about resilience. Professor Du added: “The question for the Prime Minister is whether to use this breathing space to build resilience – or wait for the next Greenland.” To read the policy paper in full, click on this link:

View all posts
Powered by