Fixating picture boundaries does not eliminate boundary extension: Implications for scene representation

Observers frequently remember seeing more of a scene than was shown (boundary extension). Does this reflect a lack of eye fixations to the boundary region? Single-object photographs were presented for 14–15 s each. Main objects were either whole or slightly cropped by one boundary, creating a salient marker of boundary placement. All participants expected a memory test, but only half were informed that boundary memory would be tested. Participants in both conditions made multiple fixations to the boundary region and the cropped region during study. Demonstrating the importance of these regions, test-informed participants fixated them sooner, longer, and more frequently. Boundary ratings (Experiment 1) and border adjustment tasks (Experiments 2–4) revealed boundary extension in both conditions. The error was reduced, but not eliminated, in the test-informed condition. Surprisingly, test knowledge and multiple fixations to the salient cropped region, during study and at test, were insufficient to overcome boundary extension on the cropped side. Results are discussed within a traditional visual-centric framework versus a multisource model of scene perception.

[1]  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.

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

[3]  Christopher A. Dickinson,et al.  Spatial asymmetries in viewing and remembering scenes: Consequences of an attentional bias? , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[4]  Michelle R. Greene,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article The Briefest of Glances The Time Course of Natural Scene Understanding , 2022 .

[5]  T. Hubbard,et al.  Boundary extension: Findings and theories , 2010, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  Gregory J. Zelinsky,et al.  Searching for camouflaged targets: Effects of target-background similarity on visual search , 2006, Vision Research.

[7]  Helene Intraub,et al.  More than meets the eye: The effect of planned fixations on scene representation , 2006, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  R. Baddeley,et al.  Do we look at lights? Using mixture modelling to distinguish between low- and high-level factors in natural image viewing , 2009 .

[9]  Benjamin W Tatler,et al.  The central fixation bias in scene viewing: selecting an optimal viewing position independently of motor biases and image feature distributions. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[10]  C. Gottesman,et al.  Mental layout extrapolations prime spatial processing of scenes. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[12]  H Intraub,et al.  Looking at pictures but remembering scenes. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  Lester C. Loschky,et al.  Eye movements serialize memory for objects in scenes , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  G. T. Buswell.  How People Look At Pictures: A Study Of The Psychology Of Perception In Art , 2012 .

[15]  J. Henderson,et al.  The Role of Fixation Position in Detecting Scene Changes Across Saccades , 1999 .

[16]  K. Rayner.  The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  Eye guidance in natural scenes , 2009 .

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

[19]  Helene Intraub,et al.  Constraints on spatial extrapolation in the mental representation of scenes: View-boundaries vs. object-boundaries , 2003 .

[20]  A. L. Yarbus.  Eye Movements During Perception of Complex Objects , 1967 .

[21]  J. Henderson,et al.  Accurate visual memory for previously attended objects in natural scenes , 2002 .

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

[23]  H. Intraub.  Rethinking Scene Perception , 2010 .

[24]  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.

[25]  Christopher A. Dickinson,et al.  False Memory 1/20th of a Second Later , 2008, Psychological science.

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

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

[28]  Helene Intraub,et al.  Boundary extension , 2009, Scholarpedia.

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

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

[31]  R. C. Langford.  How People Look at Pictures, A Study of the Psychology of Perception in Art. , 1936 .

[32]  S. Thorpe,et al.  Speed of processing in the human visual system , 1996, Nature.

[33]  D. E. Irwin,et al.  Eye movements and scene perception: Memory for things observed , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  A. Hollingworth.  Constructing visual representations of natural scenes: the roles of short- and long-term visual memory. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[36]  R. B. Hurley.  MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE 53 , 1998 .