| Literature DB >> 31983637 |
Wilma A Bainbridge1, Chris I Baker2.
Abstract
Boundary extension, a memory distortion in which observers consistently recall a scene with visual information beyond its boundaries, is widely accepted across the psychological sciences as a phenomenon revealing fundamental insight into memory representations [1-3], robust across paradigms [1, 4] and age groups [5-7]. This phenomenon has been taken to suggest that the mental representation of a scene consists of an intermingling of sensory information and a schema that extrapolates the views of a presented scene [8], and it has been used to provide evidence for the role of the neocortex [9] and hippocampus [10, 11] in the schematization of scenes during memory. However, the study of boundary extension has typically focused on object-oriented images that are not representative of our visuospatial world. Here, using a broad set of 1,000 images tested on 2,000 participants in a rapid recognition task, we discover "boundary contraction" as an equally robust phenomenon. Further, image composition largely drives whether extension or contraction is observed-although object-oriented images cause more boundary extension, scene-oriented images cause more boundary contraction. Finally, these effects also occur during drawing tasks, including a task with minimal memory load-when participants copy an image during viewing. Collectively, these results show that boundary extension is not a universal phenomenon and put into question the assumption that scene memory automatically combines visual information with additional context derived from internal schema. Instead, our memory for a scene may be largely driven by its visual composition, with a tendency to extend or contract the boundaries equally likely. Published by Elsevier Ltd.Entities:
Keywords: boundary extension; boundary transformations; drawings; memory; scenes
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31983637 PMCID: PMC7187786 DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.12.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Biol ISSN: 0960-9822 Impact factor: 10.834