When less is more: Line drawings lead to greater boundary extension than do colour photographs

Is boundary extension (false memory beyond the edges of the view) determined solely by the schematic structure of the view or does the quality of the pictorial information impact this error? To examine this, colour photographs or line-drawings of 12 multi-object scenes (Experiment 1: N=64) and 16 single-object scenes (Experiment 2: N=64) were presented for 14 s each. At test, the same pictures were each rated as being the “same”, “closer-up”, or “farther away” (five-point scale). Although the layout, the scope of the view, the distance of the main objects to the edges, the background space and the gist of the scenes were held constant, line drawings yielded greater boundary extension than did their photographic counterparts for multi-object (Experiment 1) and single-object (Experiment 2) scenes. Results are discussed in the context of the multisource model and its implications for the study of scene perception and memory.

[1]  M. Potter Short-term conceptual memory for pictures. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[2]  H. Intraub,et al.  Wide-angle memories of close-up scenes. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  H. Intraub,et al.  Boundary extension: fundamental aspect of pictorial representation or encoding artifact? , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[4]  Marcia K. Johnson,et al.  Source monitoring. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[5]  A. Oliva,et al.  From Blobs to Boundary Edges: Evidence for Time- and Spatial-Scale-Dependent Scene Recognition , 1994 .

[6]  H. Intraub,et al.  Boundary Extension for Briefly Glimpsed Photographs: Do Common Perceptual Processes Result in Unexpected Memory Distortions? , 1996 .

[7]  Denis Fize,et al.  Speed of processing in the human visual system , 1996, Nature.

[8]  P. Kellman,et al.  A common mechanism for illusory and occluded object completion. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  H. Intraub,et al.  Effects of perceiving and imagining scenes on memory for pictures. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  H. Intraub Anticipatory spatial representation of 3D regions explored by sighted observers and a deaf-and-blind-observer , 2004, Cognition.

[11]  M. Bar Visual objects in context , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[12]  H. Hecht,et al.  Boundary extension: the role of magnification, object size, context, and binocular information. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  Karen K. Daniels,et al.  The shape of a view: Are rectilinear views necessary to elicit boundary extension? , 2006 .

[14]  D. Lindsay 2.19 – Source Monitoring , 2008 .

[15]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Looking at scenes while searching for numbers: Dividing attention multiplies space , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  J. Byrne Learning and memory : a comprehensive reference , 2008 .

[17]  Christopher A. Dickinson,et al.  Transsaccadic representation of layout: what is the time course of boundary extension? , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  Michelle R. Greene,et al.  Recognition of natural scenes from global properties: Seeing the forest without representing the trees , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  Michelle R. Greene,et al.  The Briefest of Glances: The Time Course of Natural Scene Understanding , 2009 .

[20]  A. Oliva,et al.  Why does vantage point affect boundary extension? , 2011 .

[21]  Krista A. Ehinger,et al.  Estimating scene typicality from human ratings and image features , 2011, CogSci.

[22]  E. Maguire,et al.  Attenuated Boundary Extension Produces a Paradoxical Memory Advantage in Amnesic Patients , 2012, Current Biology.

[23]  Helene Intraub,et al.  Rethinking visual scene perception. , 2012, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.