File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Mechanism independence for texture-modulation detection is consistent with a filter-rectify-filter mechanism

TitleMechanism independence for texture-modulation detection is consistent with a filter-rectify-filter mechanism
Authors
Issue Date2003
PublisherCambridge University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=VNS
Citation
Visual Neuroscience, 2003, v. 20 n. 1, p. 65-76 How to Cite?
AbstractThe ability of the visual system to detect stimuli that vary along dimensions other than luminance or color— “second-order” stimuli—has been of considerable interest in recent years. An important unresolved issue is whether different types of second-order stimuli are detected by a single, all purpose, mechanism, or by mechanisms that are specific to stimulus type. Using a conventional psychophysical paradigm, we show that for a class of second-order stimuli—textures sinusoidally modulated in orientation (OM), spatial frequency (FM), and contrast (CM)—the human visual system employs mechanisms that are selective to stimulus type. Whereas the addition of a subthreshold mask to a test pattern of the same stimulus type was found to facilitate the detection of the test, no facilitation was observed when mask and test were of different types, suggesting mechanism independence for the different types of stimulus. This finding raises the important question of whether mechanism independence is compatible with the well-known filter-rectify-filter (FRF) model of second-order stimulus detection, since FRF mechanisms, in principle, do not discriminate between stimulus types. We show that for all mask/test combinations except those with CM masks, the FRF mechanism giving the largest response to the test modulation is largely unaffected by subthreshold levels of a different stimulus-type mask. For this reason, we cannot rule out the possibility that FRF mechanisms mediate the detection of our stimuli. For combinations involving CM masks, however, we propose that a process of contrast normalization renders the test stimulus insensitive to the mask stimulus.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/42605
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.871
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.231
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKingdom, FAAen_HK
dc.contributor.authorPrins, Nen_HK
dc.contributor.authorHayes, Aen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2007-03-23T04:27:31Z-
dc.date.available2007-03-23T04:27:31Z-
dc.date.issued2003en_HK
dc.identifier.citationVisual Neuroscience, 2003, v. 20 n. 1, p. 65-76en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0952-5238en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/42605-
dc.description.abstractThe ability of the visual system to detect stimuli that vary along dimensions other than luminance or color— “second-order” stimuli—has been of considerable interest in recent years. An important unresolved issue is whether different types of second-order stimuli are detected by a single, all purpose, mechanism, or by mechanisms that are specific to stimulus type. Using a conventional psychophysical paradigm, we show that for a class of second-order stimuli—textures sinusoidally modulated in orientation (OM), spatial frequency (FM), and contrast (CM)—the human visual system employs mechanisms that are selective to stimulus type. Whereas the addition of a subthreshold mask to a test pattern of the same stimulus type was found to facilitate the detection of the test, no facilitation was observed when mask and test were of different types, suggesting mechanism independence for the different types of stimulus. This finding raises the important question of whether mechanism independence is compatible with the well-known filter-rectify-filter (FRF) model of second-order stimulus detection, since FRF mechanisms, in principle, do not discriminate between stimulus types. We show that for all mask/test combinations except those with CM masks, the FRF mechanism giving the largest response to the test modulation is largely unaffected by subthreshold levels of a different stimulus-type mask. For this reason, we cannot rule out the possibility that FRF mechanisms mediate the detection of our stimuli. For combinations involving CM masks, however, we propose that a process of contrast normalization renders the test stimulus insensitive to the mask stimulus.en_HK
dc.format.extent1056352 bytes-
dc.format.extent1980 bytes-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain-
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherCambridge University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=VNSen_HK
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.rightsVisual Neuroscience. Copyright © Cambridge University Press.en_HK
dc.subject.meshModels, neurologicalen_HK
dc.subject.meshInternal-external controlen_HK
dc.subject.meshPattern recognition, visualen_HK
dc.subject.meshSignal detection (psychology) - physiologyen_HK
dc.subject.meshVision - physiologyen_HK
dc.titleMechanism independence for texture-modulation detection is consistent with a filter-rectify-filter mechanismen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0952-5238&volume=20&issue=1&spage=65&epage=76&date=2003&atitle=Mechanism+independence+for+texture-modulation+detection+is+consistent+with+a+filter-rectify-filter+mechanismen_HK
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_versionen_HK
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S0952523803201073en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid12699084-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-0037269803-
dc.identifier.hkuros81925-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000182051200007-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats