Remembering: Does the emotional content of a photograph affect boundary extension?

Beighley, Steven; Sacco, Garret R.; Bauer, Laura; Hayes, Adele M.; Intraub, Helene

doi:10.1037/emo0000477

Cited by 11 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 75 publications

(171 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The scene-based mechanism is sensitive to global scene properties, such as concavity, navigability, openness and mean depth (Bonner & Epstein, 2017;Cheng et al, 2019;Greene & Oliva, 2009;Park & Park, 2020), and is biased to construct a broader view, perhaps via the amodal scene construction originally proposed by Intraub (2012). At the same time, the objectbased mechanism exerts pressure to process objects in more detail or with higher fidelity, perhaps via object-based attention (Beighley et al, 2019), resulting in down-weighting or loss of peripheral information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic transition from boundary extension to contraction along an object-to-scene continuum

Park¹,

Josephs²,

Konkle³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After viewing a picture of an environment, our memory of it typically extends beyond what was presented—a phenomenon called boundary extension. But sometimes, memory errors show the opposite pattern—boundary contraction—and the relationship between these phenomena is controversial. We constructed virtual 3D environments, and created a series of views at different distances, from object close-ups to wide-angle indoor views, and tested for memory errors along this object-to-scene continuum. Boundary extension was evident for close-scale views, and transitioned parametrically to boundary contraction for far-scale views. However, this transition point was not tied to a specific position in the environment; instead, it tracked with judgments of the best looking view. We propose that boundary extension and contraction are in fact integrated phenomena, and we offer an account where competition between object-based and scene-based affordances determine whether a view will extend or contract in memory.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic transition from boundary extension to contraction along an object-to-scene continuum

Park¹,

Josephs²,

Konkle³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We instead used an external manipulation of arousal along with neutral images rather than relying on negative images to elicit arousal. This procedure meant other aspects of the image were consistent (e.g., content, context, composition), and is thus a more methodologically sound way of manipulating the arousal of an image (Porter et al, 2014; also see Beighley et al, 2018). Indeed, noise consistently elicits an arousal response similar to fear across individuals (Rhudy & Meagher, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Participants were correct more than half the time in recognizing no change to the images. 8 We then calculated the mean reported camera distance for each participant on the −2 to +2 scale across all images (M = −0.09 SD = 0.18), and conducted an exploratory one-samples t test on this variable (Beighley et al, 2018;Intraub et al, 1996;Takarangi et al, 2015). We found that the mean camera distance was significantly less than zero (where zero indicates no error), t(95) = −5.00, p < .001, d = 0.51, 95% CI [0.06, 0.13].…”

Section: Analysis Of Boundary Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, these data suggest that noise attenuated the extent of boundary extension. To examine the absolute number of errors that participants made, and-in line with Takarangi et al (2015) and Beighley et al (2018)-whether noise affected the rare occasions where participants made boundary restriction errors, we determined the error rate for boundary restriction and boundary extension. We calculated proportions by dividing the number of test images on which participants made a particular type of error (i.e., BE = distance judgements < 0; BR = distance judgements > 0) by the total number of test images.…”

Section: Analysis Of Boundary Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overwhelmingly, participants made boundary extension errors regardless of valence-drawing the images with the central object smaller and with more extensive boundaries than the original images. Using a camera-distance paradigm, Beighley, Sacco, Bauer, Hayes, and Intraub (2018) also found that valence-operationalized here as positive (happiness, joy, pleasure, social connection) or negative (depression, grief, angst, social isolation) emotion expressed by an actor in each image-did not affect the rate of boundary extension errors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The role of arousal in boundary judgement errors

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eyewitnesses to a crime rely heavily on their visual memory; however, there are many ways that the details of visual scenes can be missed, or distorted. In particular, for emotional scenes, the Bboundaries^are narrowed at retrieval, whereas central detailssuch as a weapon-are remembered in greater detail. This phenomenon is known as boundary restriction, the reverse of boundary extension whereby people tend to expand the boundaries of a neutral scene at retrieval. In the present series of experiments, we investigated whether arousal is the element of an emotional scene that leads to increased boundary restriction or reduced boundary extension. We presented neutral images to participants either with or without a stress-inducing noise. In Experiment 1a and 1b, at test, participants viewed the image they originally viewed next to the same image but with narrower or wider boundaries and selected which of the two images they originally viewed. In Experiment 2, at test, participants viewed the identical image they originally viewed, but were told the boundaries had been changed. Participants selected the extent to which the images at test had restricted or extended boundaries compared to their memory of the original image. When the noise stressor was present, participants made more boundary restriction errors-selecting the image with narrower boundaries than the original-and fewer boundary extension errors than when the noise was absent. Our data suggest that arousal plays a key role in boundary judgements.

show abstract