2023
DOI: 10.1177/09567976221140341
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predictive Processing of Scene Layout Depends on Naturalistic Depth of Field

Abstract: Boundary extension is a classic memory illusion in which observers remember more of a scene than was presented. According to predictive-processing accounts, boundary extension reflects the integration of visual input and expectations of what is beyond a scene’s boundaries. According to normalization accounts, boundary extension rather reflects one end of a normalization process toward a scene’s typically experienced viewing distance, such that close-up views give boundary extension but distant views give bound… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This could relate to the slight decrease in identity decoding within the place memory areas compared with the scene perception areas during recall if the amount of visuospatial information within the place memory areas is not fixed across trials. This may also relate to boundary transformations, such as extension and contraction (Intraub and Richardson, 1989;Bainbridge and Baker, 2020;Hafri et al, 2022;Gandolfo et al, 2023). Thus, our results show that a new network of brain areas processing mnemonic information regarding visuospatial context associated with a scene is interposed between structures implicated in scene memory (e.g., the hippocampus or MPA) and the perceptually oriented scene areas (i.e., OPA and PPA), and future work should consider these alternative accounts of the memory area's activity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…This could relate to the slight decrease in identity decoding within the place memory areas compared with the scene perception areas during recall if the amount of visuospatial information within the place memory areas is not fixed across trials. This may also relate to boundary transformations, such as extension and contraction (Intraub and Richardson, 1989;Bainbridge and Baker, 2020;Hafri et al, 2022;Gandolfo et al, 2023). Thus, our results show that a new network of brain areas processing mnemonic information regarding visuospatial context associated with a scene is interposed between structures implicated in scene memory (e.g., the hippocampus or MPA) and the perceptually oriented scene areas (i.e., OPA and PPA), and future work should consider these alternative accounts of the memory area's activity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…We are not aware of any other studies in which memory for images of objects has been contrasted with the monitor set at different egocentric positions. Although isolated images of objects do not convey absolute distance information, adding richer visual depth cues to the image may increase the likelihood that the stimulus is processed according to distance (Gandolfo et al, 2023). For example, when familiar objects are presented in the context of a rich natural background in which a variety of other objects and environmental features are also visible, they appear to be processed (Josephs & Konkle, 2019) and represented in the brain (Josephs & Konkle, 2020) according to implied viewing distance.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More work is needed to determine if attention contributes to other sources of memory transformation or not. For example, natural statistics of scene depth are strongly correlated with the trend and magnitude of transformation (Lin et al, 2022), with images with unnaturally deep depth of field having a higher likelihood of eliciting boundary contraction (Gandolfo et al, 2023). Likewise, judgements of perspective distance have been shown to be highly reliant on patterns of spatial frequency (Brady & Oliva, 2012;Oliva & Torralba, 2001;Oliva et al, 2006;Barron et al, 2021;Lescoart et al, 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%