Abstract

We sought to determine whether the detection and the identification of texture modulations are mediated by a common mechanism. On each trial two textures were presented, one of which contained a modulation in orientation (OM), spatial frequency (FM), or contrast (CM). Observers were required to indicate whether the modulated texture was presented in the first or the second interval as well as the nature of the texture modulation. The results showed that for two of the three pairwise matchings (OM–FM and OM–CM) detection and identification performance were nearly identical, suggesting a common underlying mechanism. However, when FM and CM textures were paired, discrimination thresholds were significantly higher than detection thresholds. In the context of the filter–rectify–filter model of texture perception, our results suggest that the mechanisms underlying detection are labeled with respect to their first-order input; i.e., the identities of these mechanisms are available to higher levels of processing. Several possible explanations for the misidentification of FM and CM at detection threshold are considered.

© 2003 Optical Society of America

Modulation frequency and orientation tuning of second-order texture mechanisms

A. Serge Arsenault, Frances Wilkinson, and Frederick A. A. Kingdom
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16(3) 427-435 (1999)

Detection of contrast-defined shape

Robert F. Hess, Rebecca L. Achtman, and Yi-Zhong Wang
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18(9) 2220-2227 (2001)

Orientation gradient detection exhibits variable coupling between first- and second-stage filtering mechanisms

Andrew Isaac Meso and Robert F. Hess
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 28(8) 1721-1731 (2011)

Integration of first- and second-order orientation

Harriet A. Allen, Robert F. Hess, Behzad Mansouri, and Steven C. Dakin
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 20(6) 974-986 (2003)

Visual response saturation to orientation contrast in the perception of texture boundary

Isamu Motoyoshi and Shin’ya Nishida
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18(9) 2209-2219 (2001)