Fixating picture boundaries does not eliminate boundary extension: Implications for scene representation. Issue 11 (November 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Michod Gagnier, Kristin; Dickinson, Christopher A.; Intraub, Helene
• Is Part Of: Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. Volume 66:Issue 11(2013)
• Page Start: 2161
• Page End: 2186
• Publication Date: 2013-11
• Subjects: Scene perception -- Eye movements -- Spatial layout -- Visual memory -- Boundary extension; Psychology, Experimental -- Periodicals; Psychophysiology -- Periodicals; Psychology, Comparative -- Periodicals; 150.72405
• DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2013.775595
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1747-0218

Abstract

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.