Literature DB >> 9460720

Vertical biases in scene memory.

F H Previc1, H Intraub.   

Abstract

In a recent theoretical paper (Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1990, 13, 519-542), Previc argued that vertical asymmetries in perception may largely result from the biases of the lower and upper visual fields toward proximal and distal space, respectively. The present study examined whether this same relationship may exist for visual scene memory, by re-analyzing data from Intraub and Richardson (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1989, 15, 179-187). In that study, subjects remembered photographs of scenes as being farther away than was actually the case and extended the boundaries of the scenes accordingly; in some cases, the remembered scenes were also shifted vertically. This study formally examined whether prominent landmarks in Intraub and Richardson's close-up and wide-angle photographs were displaced vertically in subjects' reproductions of them from memory. A total of 475 measurements in 210 drawings by 41 subjects were made. The results were that 64% of the original landmark points were shifted downward in the drawings made from memory, whereas only 36% were shifted upward. Although most of the original points were located in the upper-field and would have been expected to be shifted downward as the original image contracted in memory, a chi-square analysis showed that more upper-field points were shifted downward than were lower-field points shifted upward in the remembered scenes. The downward shift could reflect an expansion of the upper-field in memory, consistent with the scene being placed farther away, or it could reflect an elevation of the assumed viewing (head) position in memory.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9460720     DOI: 10.1016/s0028-3932(97)00091-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  7 in total

1.  Spatial distortions in localization and midline estimation in hemianopia and normal vision.

Authors:  Francesca C Fortenbaugh; Thomas M VanVleet; Michael A Silver; Lynn C Robertson
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2015-04-11       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  Transsaccadic representation of layout: what is the time course of boundary extension?

Authors:  Christopher A Dickinson; Helene Intraub
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Perception of differences in naturalistic dynamic scenes, and a V1-based model.

Authors:  Michelle P S To; Iain D Gilchrist; David J Tolhurst
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015-01-16       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Individual differences in visual field shape modulate the effects of attention on the lower visual field advantage in crowding.

Authors:  Francesca C Fortenbaugh; Michael A Silver; Lynn C Robertson
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015-02-12       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  When here becomes there: attentional distribution modulates foveal bias in peripheral localization.

Authors:  Francesca C Fortenbaugh; Lynn C Robertson
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Isoeccentric locations are not equivalent: the extent of the vertical meridian asymmetry.

Authors:  Jared Abrams; Aaron Nizam; Marisa Carrasco
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Prediction beyond the borders: ERP indices of boundary extension-related error.

Authors:  István Czigler; Helene Intraub; Gábor Stefanics
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.