Boundary extension is a constructive memory error for views of scenes in which views tend to be remembered as more spatially expansive than they appeared. In seven experiments we examined whether local differences in boundary extension within views might exist by presenting participants with overhead views of single, elongated objects or object pairs on textured ground surfaces in which objects were oriented either vertically or horizontally. Memory for views' spatial expanse was tested with either a view-recognition test or a border-adjustment test in which participants could adjust the spatial expanse of a test view using the computer's mouse. The border-adjustment test was used to assess local boundary extension (primarily); the view-recognition test was used to assess participants' memories for the overall spatial expanse of views (ie global boundary extension). Across experiments, in the border-adjustment tests specifically, participants showed more spatial expanse along the object's longer axis, in some cases restricting the view along the object's shorter axis. In addition, the recognition-test data revealed greater boundary extension for views with vertically oriented objects than for views with horizontally oriented objects. Taken together, the results suggest that objects in scene views can affect both local and global aspects of memory for spatial expanse of scene views.
BertaminiM.JonesL. A.SpoonerA.HechtH. (2005). Boundary extension: The role of magnification, object size, context, and binocular information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1288–1307.
3.
CarrascoM.TalgarC. P.CameronE. L. (2001). Characterizing visual performance fields: Effects of transient covert attention, spatial frequency, eccentricity, task and set size. Spatial Vision, 15, 61–75.
4.
CastelhanoM. S.PollatsekA. (2010). Extrapolating spatial layout in scene representations. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1018–1025.
5.
de MontalembertM.MamassianP. (2010). The vertical—horizontal illusion in hemi-spatial neglect. Neuropsychologia, 48, 3245–3251.
6.
DickinsonC. A.IntraubH. (2008). Transsaccadic representation of layout: What is the time course of boundary extension?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 34, 543–555.
7.
DickinsonC. A.IntraubH. (2009). Spatial asymmetries in viewing and remembering scenes: Consequences of an attentional bias?Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 1251–1262.
8.
EdelmanS.BülthoffH. H. (1992). Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects. Vision Research, 32, 2385–2400.
9.
GagnierK. M.DickinsonC. A.IntraubH. (2013). Fixating picture boundaries does not eliminate boundary extension: Implications for scene representation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 2161–2186.
10.
GagnierK. M.IntraubH.OlivaA.WolfeJ. M. (2011). Why does vantage point affect boundary extension?Visual Cognition, 19, 234–257.
11.
GarsoffkyB.SchwanS.HuffM. (2009). Canonical views of dynamic scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 17–27.
12.
GomezP.ShutterJ.RouderJ. N. (2008). Memory for objects in canonical and noncanonical viewpoints. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 940–944.
13.
GottesmanC. V. (2011). Mental layout extrapolations prime spatial processing of scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 382–395.
14.
GottesmanC. V.IntraubH. (2003). Constraints on mental extrapolation in the mental representation of scenes: View-boundaries vs. object-boundaries. Visual Cognition, 10, 875–893.
15.
GreeneM. R.OlivaA. (2009). Recognition of natural scenes from global properties: Seeing the forest without representing the trees. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 137–176.
16.
IntraubH. (1997). The representation of visual scenes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 217–221.
17.
IntraubH. (2010). Rethinking scene perception: A multisource model. In RossB. (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 52, pp. 231–264). Burlington, MA: Academic Press.
18.
IntraubH.BenderR. S.MangelsJ. A. (1992). Looking at pictures but remembering scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 180–191.
19.
IntraubH.BodamerJ. L. (1993). Boundary extension: Fundamental aspect of pictorial representation or encoding artifact?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1387–1397.
20.
IntraubH.DanielsK. K.HorowitzT. S.WolfeJ. M. (2008). Looking at scenes while searching for numbers: Dividing attention multiplies space. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 1337–1349.
21.
IntraubH.DickinsonC. A. (2008). False memory 1/20th of a second later: What the early onset of boundary extension reveals about perception. Psychological Science, 19, 1007–1014.
22.
IntraubH.GottesmanC. V.BillsA. J. (1998). Effects of perceiving and imagining scenes on memory for pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 186–201.
23.
IntraubH.HoffmanJ. E.WetherholdC. J.StoehsS. A. (2006). More than meets the eye: The effect of planned fixations on scene representation. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 759–769.
24.
IntraubH.RichardsonM. (1989). Wide-angle memories of close-up scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 179–187.
25.
JacobyL. L.DallasM. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 306–340.
26.
JohnsonW. A.DarkV. J.JacobyL. L. (1985). Perceptual fluency and recognition judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 3–11.
27.
JohnsonM. K.HashtroudiS.LindsayD. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28.
28.
KarnathH.-O.FerberS.BülthoffH. H. (2000). Neuronal representation of object recognition. Neuropsychologia, 38, 1235–1241.
29.
KünnapasT. M. (1955). An analysis of the vertical-horizontal illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 134–140.
30.
LesterB. D.HechtL. N.VeceraS. P. (2009). Visual prior entry for foreground figures. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 654–659.
31.
NakayamaK.HeZ. J.ShimojoS. (1995). Visual surface representation: A critical link between lower-level and higher-level vision. In KosslynS. M.OshersonD. N. (Eds.), Invitation to cognitive science (pp. 1–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
NeiderM. B.ZelinskyG. J. (2006). Searching for camouflaged targets: Effects of target-background similarity on visual search. Vision Research, 46, 2217–2235.
33.
O'ReganJ. K. (1992). Solving the “real” mysteries of visual perception: The world as an outside memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 461–488.
34.
PalmerS. E.RoschE.ChaseP. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In LongJ.BaddeleyA. (Eds.), Attention and performance (Vol. 9, pp. 135–151). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35.
ParkS.IntraubH.YiD.-J.WiddersD.ChunM. M. (2007). Beyond the edges of a view: Boundary extension in human scene-selective visual cortex. Neuron, 54, 335–342.
36.
PrinzmetalW.GettlemanL. (1993). Vertical-horizontal illusion: One eye is better than two. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 81–88.
37.
SanockiT.MicheletK.SellersE.ReynoldsJ. (2006). Representations of scene layout can consist of independent, functional pieces. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 415–427.
38.
TarrM. J.PinkerS. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233–282.
39.
VincentB. T.BaddeleyR.CorreaniA.TrosciankoT.LeonardsU. (2009) Do we look at lights? Using mixture modelling to distinguish between low- and high-level factors in natural image viewing. Visual Cognition, 17, 856–879.
40.
WilliamsP. A.EnnsJ. T. (1996). Pictorial depth and framing have independent effects on the horizontal-vertical illusion. Perception, 25, 921–926.
41.
WolfeU.MaloneyL. T.TamM. (2005). Distortions of perceived length in the frontoparallel plane: Tests of perspective theories. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 967–979.
