Understanding boundary extension: Normalization and extension errors in picture memory among adults and boys with and without Asperger's syndrome

Chapman, Peter; Ropar, Danielle; Mitchell, Peter; Ackroyd, Katie

doi:10.1080/13506280444000508a

Cited by 24 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…effects of aperture size, Dickinson & Intraub, 2009;Intraub, Hoffman, Wetherhold, & Stoehs, 2006). Such data also highlight a potential role of adjustment and anchoring (Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982) in boundary extension (for discussion, Chapman et al, 2005). Gottesman and Intraub (2003) examined whether boundary extension resulted from extension of object boundaries or from extension of view boundaries.…”

Section: Viewing Anglementioning

confidence: 95%

“…Furthermore, boundary extension occurred for cropped versions and for noncropped versions of the same scenes (Intraub & Richardson, 1989). Chapman et al (2005) had participants zoom in or zoom out on a probe picture to match the remembered view of a target picture, and even though zooming in or zooming out produced different degrees of cropping (or even appearance or disappearance) of peripheral elements of the scene, whether the target contained a cropped object or did not contain a cropped object had no effect on boundary extension. Consistent with the idea that cropping does not influence boundary extension, Gottesman and Intraub (2003) demonstrated boundary extension of a scene does not result from extension of boundaries of objects within that scene.…”

Section: Cropped Objectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although this asymmetry is consistent with the notion that boundary extension is more likely with close-up views than with wide-angle views, it also underscores the importance of the probe view on estimates of boundary extension. Along these lines, Chapman, Ropar, Mitchell, and Ackroyd (2005) presented probe pictures that were initially very wide angle or very close up, and participants adjusted the boundaries of those probes (by magnification or minification, i.e., zooming in or out) until the viewpoint in the probe matched the viewpoint in the remembered target. Close-up targets resulted in larger boundary extension than did wide-angle targets, but of greater interest, whether the probe was initially very wide angle or very close up influenced participants' adjustments.…”

Section: Viewing Anglementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Boundary extension: Findings and theories

Hubbard

Hutchison²,

Courtney

2010

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A view of a scene is often remembered as containing information that might have been present just beyond the actual boundaries of that view, and this is referred to as boundary extension. Characteristics of the view (e.g., scene or nonscene; close-up or wide-angle; whether objects are cropped, static, or in motion, emotionally neutral or emotionally charged), display (e.g., aperture shape and size; target duration; retention interval; whether probes of memory involve magnification/minification or change in physical distance), and observer (e.g., allocation of attention; age; planned fixation, gaze direction, and eye movements; monocular or binocular viewing; prior exposure; neurological correlates) that influence boundary extension are reviewed. Proposed mechanisms of boundary extension (perceptual, memory, or motion schema; extension-normalization; attentional selection; errors in source monitoring) are discussed, and possible relationships of boundary extension to other cognitive processes (e.g., representational momentum; remembered distance and remembered size; amodal completion; transsaccadic memory) are briefly addressed.

show abstract

Section: Viewing Anglementioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Cropped Objectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Viewing Anglementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Boundary extension: Findings and theories

Hubbard

Hutchison²,

Courtney

2010

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would suggest that the TD group attempted to use the model page as a frame of reference in a manner that was not seen in the WS group. This represents a form of a boundary extension scaling error (Chapman, Ropar & Mitchell, 2005), which in this case involves retention of information about the relative size of the model on a page when copying the model in a smaller area through the cardboard aperture. Further research is needed to understand the nature of this scaling bias in TD children.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thinking inside the box: Spatial frames of reference for drawing in Williams syndrome and typical development

Hudson

Farran

2017

Research in Developmental Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Successfully completing a drawing relies on the ability to accurately impose and manipulate spatial frames of reference for the object that is being drawn and for the drawing space. Typically developing (TD) children use cues such as the page boundary as a frame of reference to guide the orientation of drawn lines. Individuals with Williams syndrome (WS) typically produce incohesive drawings; this is proposed to reflect a local processing bias. Aims: Across two studies, we provide the first investigation of the effect of using a frame of reference when drawing simple lines and shapes in WS and TD groups What this paper addsThis is the first study to assess whether individuals with WS can effectively use spatial frames of reference when drawing, and in doing so acts as a direct test of the assertion that visuo-spatial cognition in WS is characterised by a local processing bias (Bellugi, Sabo & Vaid, 1988). This study also investigated the influence of a frame of reference in TD children to a more fine-grained level than previous studies. Results suggest that the WS group, like the TD participants, were influenced by the surrounding orientation cues provided by the frame, and thus refutes the local processing bias hypothesis. The Drawing Orientation 3 SPATIAL FRAMES OF REFERENCE IN WILLIAMS SYNDROME Task (DOT) and the whole-shape drawing task are suitable for use with clinical groups such as individuals with constructional apraxia or autism to investigate use of spatial frames of reference when drawing.

show abstract

“…When participants drew the scene from memory, they generally drew the teddy bear sitting on a flight of stairs. Boundary extension occurs across age and gender (see Seamon et al, 2002); despite prior warning (Intraub & Bodamer, 1993); with both real-life images (Intraub & Bodamer, 1993;Intraub et al, 1996) and abstract shapes (McDunn, Siddiqui, & Brown, 2014); and when memory is assessed by drawing, forced-choice, or boundary adjustment tests (where participants adjust an image's boundaries; Chapman, Ropar, Mitchell, & Ackroyd, 2005;Daniels & Intraub, 2006;Dickinson & Intraub, 2009;Intraub, 2004;Intraub, Hoffman, Wetherhold, & Stoehs, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Understanding boundary extension: Normalization and extension errors in picture memory among adults and boys with and without Asperger's syndrome

Cited by 24 publications

References 42 publications

Boundary extension: Findings and theories

Boundary extension: Findings and theories

Thinking inside the box: Spatial frames of reference for drawing in Williams syndrome and typical development

The role of arousal in boundary judgement errors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About