Short article: When are moving images remembered better? Study–test congruence and the dynamic superiority effect

Buratto, Luciano Grüdtner; Matthews, William J.; Lamberts, Koen

doi:10.1080/17470210902883263

Cited by 23 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scenes which were moving in the study phase were remembered better than scenes which were static, and performance was improved when the mode of presentation at test was the same as at study. These results were not dependent on the presence of a face in the scene; the dynamic superiority and study-test congruency effects reported by Matthews et al (2007) and Buratto et al (2009) are general phenomena which are not restricted to scenes containing moving faces. (Note that this experiment was not concerned with comparing the absolute memory for "hands" and "face" stimuli, only with showing that the same patterns of results hold for both types.)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…Dividing attention may render observers less able to encode the perceptual details of the studied scenes, including their movement status, reducing the study-test congruency effect reported by Buratto et al (2009). On the other hand, if the encoding of movement status is automatic and relatively effortless, dividing attention will not modulate the effect.…”

Section: Memory For Moving Scenesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…However, there was no main effect of movement in the test phase, F < 1, p = .57. Buratto et al (2009) The finding that responses in the secondary task were slower after viewing moving scenes suggests that the superior memory for these scenes may result from greater attentional engagement with their content. In other words, participants may have paid more attention to moving items in the study phase at the expense of slower RTs in the tone-monitoring task.…”

Section: Memory Sensitivity (D a )mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In all experiments, stimuli were film clips drawn from the same collection as used by Buratto et al (2009). Clips were black and white, silent, with no cuts and no camera movement.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many of the scenes used by Matthews et al (2007), and all of those used by Buratto et al (2009), depicted people. As noted above, there has been considerable research into the role of movement in face recognition, and the question arises: Are the dynamic superiority and study-test congruence effects reported in our previous research specific to facial stimuli?…”

Section: Memory For Moving Scenesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Exploring the memory advantage for moving scenes

2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognition memory is better for moving images than for static images (the dynamic superiority effect), and performance is best when the mode of presentation at test matches that at study (the study-test congruence effect). We investigated the basis for these effects. In Experiment 1, dividing attention during encoding reduced overall performance but had little effect on the dynamic superiority or study-test congruence effects. In addition, these effects were not limited to scenes depicting faces. In Experiment 2, movement improved both old-new recognition and scene orientation judgments. In Experiment 3, movement improved the recognition of studied scenes but also increased the spurious recognition of novel scenes depicting the same people as studied scenes, suggesting that movement improves the identification of individual objects or actors without necessarily improving the retrieval of associated information. We discuss the theoretical implications of these results and highlight directions for future investigation. Memory for moving scenes 2 Exploring the memory advantage for moving scenesThe visual world is intrinsically dynamic and our visual and mnemonic systems have developed to encode and retrieve information about a moving environment (Gibson, 1979). In recent years there has been a surge of interest in the effects of movement on memory for faces (Knight & Johnston, 1997;Lander & Bruce, 2003;Lander & Chuang, 2005;O'Toole, Roark, & Abdi, 2002;Pike, Kemp, Towell, & Phillips, 1997) and objects (Balas & Sinha, 2009;Koban & Cook, 2009;Stone, 1998Stone, , 1999Vuong & Tarr, 2004). These studies have shown that dynamic information can be stored in long-term memory; people encode the temporal sequence of views of a moving stimulusits "spatiotemporal signature" -so that the information extracted from dynamic stimuli is more than just a set of static views, particularly when the motion is non-rigid (Knight & Johnston, 1997;Lander & Chuang, 2005;Stone, 1999).To date, there has been surprisingly little research on memory for moving scenes -natural images depicting complex agglomerations of objects and people. In an early study, Goldstein, Chance, Hoisington, and Buescher (1982) had participants study film clips or still images taken from those clips, and administered a recognition memory test a few minutes later. They reported a dynamic superiority effect: Recognition was better for moving images than for static images, although Goldstein et al.'s comparison was not well controlled as the durations of moving and static stimuli were not equal. More recently, Matthews, Benjamin, and Osborne (2007) presented participants with moving and static scenes of equal duration drawn from a wide variety of sources, and tested recognition memory at intervals ranging from 3 days to 1 month. Recognition of moving scenes was better than that of static scenes, and this moving advantage was independent of chromaticity. Matthews et al. also examined performance in a "multistatic" condition in which single frames drawn from regu...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Memory For Moving Scenesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Memory Sensitivity (D a )mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In all experiments, stimuli were film clips drawn from the same collection as used by Buratto et al (2009). Clips were black and white, silent, with no cuts and no camera movement.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Memory For Moving Scenesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Exploring the memory advantage for moving scenes

2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Time perception: the bad news and the good

Matthews

Meck

2014

WIRES Cognitive Science

Self Cite

144

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Time perception is fundamental and heavily researched, but the field faces a number of obstacles to theoretical progress. In this advanced review, we focus on three pieces of ‘bad news’ for time perception research: temporal perception is highly labile across changes in experimental context and task; there are pronounced individual differences not just in overall performance but in the use of different timing strategies and the effect of key variables; and laboratory studies typically bear little relation to timing in the ‘real world’. We describe recent examples of these issues and in each case offer some ‘good news’ by showing how new research is addressing these challenges to provide rich insights into the neural and information-processing bases of timing and time perception.

show abstract

Final Synthesis and Conclusions

Riskind

Rector

2018

Looming Vulnerability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Short article: When are moving images remembered better? Study–test congruence and the dynamic superiority effect

Cited by 23 publications

References 20 publications

Exploring the memory advantage for moving scenes

Exploring the memory advantage for moving scenes

Time perception: the bad news and the good

Final Synthesis and Conclusions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About