The 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.