Literature DB >> 17051399

Updating representations of learned scenes.

Cory A Finlay1, Michael A Motes, Maria Kozhevnikov.   

Abstract

Two experiments were designed to compare scene recognition reaction time (RT) and accuracy patterns following observer versus scene movement. In Experiment 1, participants memorized a scene from a single perspective. Then, either the scene was rotated or the participants moved (0 degrees -360 degrees in 36 degrees increments) around the scene, and participants judged whether the objects' positions had changed. Regardless of whether the scene was rotated or the observer moved, RT increased with greater angular distance between judged and encoded views. In Experiment 2, we varied the delay (0, 6, or 12 s) between scene encoding and locomotion. Regardless of the delay, however, accuracy decreased and RT increased with angular distance. Thus, our data show that observer movement does not necessarily update representations of spatial layouts and raise questions about the effects of duration limitations and encoding points of view on the automatic spatial updating of representations of scenes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17051399     DOI: 10.1007/s00426-006-0082-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Res        ISSN: 0340-0727


  11 in total

1.  View dependence in scene recognition after active learning.

Authors:  C G Christou; H H Bülthoff
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1999-11

2.  Intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory.

Authors:  Weimin Mou; Timothy P McNamara
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  Active and passive scene recognition across views.

Authors:  R F Wang; D J Simons
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1999-03-01

4.  Orientation specificity and spatial updating of memories for layouts.

Authors:  David Waller; Daniel R Montello; Anthony E Richardson; Mary Hegarty
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  Spatial updating of environments described in texts.

Authors:  Marios N Avraamides
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Orientation and perspective dependence in route and survey learning.

Authors:  Amy L Shelton; Timothy P McNamara
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  Automatic spatial updating during locomotion without vision.

Authors:  M J Farrell; J A Thomson
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  1998-08

8.  The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions.

Authors:  S J Luck; E K Vogel
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1997-11-20       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation.

Authors:  J J Rieser
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  Allocentric and egocentric updating of spatial memories.

Authors:  Weimin Mou; Timothy P McNamara; Christine M Valiquette; Bjorn Rump
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.051

View more
  3 in total

1.  A body-centred frame of reference drives spatial priming in visual search.

Authors:  Keira Ball; Daniel Smith; Amanda Ellison; Thomas Schenk
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-06-24       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Spatial priming in visual search: memory for body-centred information.

Authors:  Keira Ball; Alison Lane; Amanda Ellison; Thomas Schenk
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-06-10       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  On the contribution of binocular disparity to the long-term memory for natural scenes.

Authors:  Matteo Valsecchi; Karl R Gegenfurtner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.