Mental Layout Extrapolations Prime Spatial Processing of Scenes

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 382-395

  Gottesman, Carmela V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Boundary extension; Layout representation; Scene perception; Scene prime; Spatial processing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; DEPTH PERCEPTION; DISTANCE PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PHOTOSTIMULATION; REACTION TIME; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ATTENTION; COGNITION; DISTANCE PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; SPACE PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79954510830     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0021434     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Biederman I., Mezzanotte R.J., Rabinowitz J.C. Scene perception: Detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations. Cognitive Psychology 1982, 14:143-177.
2. Brady T.F., Konkle T., Alvarez G.A., Oliva A. Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2008, 105:14325-14329.
3. Christou C.G., Bulthoff H.H. View dependence in scene recognition after active learning. Memory and Cognition 1999, 27:996-1007.
4. Chun M.M., Jiang Y. Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology 1998, 36:28-71.
5. Colby C.L. Parietal cortex constructs action-oriented spatial representations. The hippocampal and parietal foundations of spatial cognition 1999, 104-126. Oxford University Press, London. N. Burgess, K.J. Jeffery, J. O'Keefe (Eds.).
6. Daniels K.K., Intraub H. The shape of a view: Are rectilinear views necessary to elicit boundary extension?. Visual Cognition 2006, 14:129-149.
7. DeLucia P.R., Maldia M.M. Visual memory for moving scenes. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2006, 59:340-360.
8. Dickinson C.A., Intraub H. Transsaccadic representation of layout: What is the time course of boundary extension?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2008, 34:543-555.
9. Dickinson C.A., Intraub H. Spatial asymmetries in viewing and remembering scenes: Consequences of an attentional bias?. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 2009, 71:1251-1262.
10. Germeys F., d'Ydewalle G. Revisiting scene primes for object locations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2001, 54:683-693.
11. Glover S.R., Dixon P. Dynamic illusion effects in a reaching task: Evidence for separate visual representations in the planning and control of reaching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2001, 27:560-572.
12. Gottesman. (2009a). Layout representations are view dependent. Manuscript in preparation.
13. Gottesman. (2009b). The role of meaning and layout information in boundary extension. Manuscript in preparation.
14. Gottesman C.V., Intraub H. Wide-angle memories of close-up scenes: A demonstration of boundary extension. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 1999, 31:86-93.
15. Gottesman C.V., Intraub H. Constraints on spatial extrapolation in the mental representation of scenes: View-boundaries vs. object-boundaries. Visual Cognition 2003, 10:875-893.
16. Gottesman C.V., Intraub H. Surface construal and the mental representation of scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2002, 28:589-599.
17. Grimes J. On the failure to detect changes in scenes across saccades. Perception 1996, 5:89-110. Oxford University Press, New York, Vancouver Studies in Cognitive Science. K. Akins (Ed.).
18. Hochberg J. Perception 1978, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 2nd ed.
19. Hochberg J. Gestalt theory and its legacy: Organization in eye and brain, in attention and mental representation. Handbook of perception and cognition: Perception and cognition at century's end 1998, 253-307. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
20. Hollingworth A. Constructing visual representations of natural scenes: The roles of short- and long-term visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2004, 30:519-537.
21. Hollingworth A. Two forms of scene memory guide visual search: Memory for scene context and memory for the binding of target object to scene location. Visual Cognition 2009, 17:273-291.
22. Hollingworth A., Henderson J.M. Object identification is isolated from scene semantic constraint: Evidence from object type and token discrimination. Acta Psychologica 1999, 102:319-343.
23. Intraub H. Anticipatory spatial representation of 3D regions explored by sighted observers and a deaf-and-blind observer. Cognition 2004, 94:19-37.
24. Intraub H., Bender R.S., Mangels J.A. Looking at pictures but remembering scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 1992, 18:180-191.
25. Intraub H., Bodamer J.L. Boundary extension: Fundamental aspect of pictorial representation or encoding artifact?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 1993, 19:1387-1397.
26. Intraub H., Daniels K.K., Horowitz T.S., Wolfe J.M. Looking at scenes while searching for numbers: Dividing attention multiplies space. Perception and Psychophysics 2008, 70:1337-1349.
27. Intraub H., Dickinson C.A. False memory 1/20th of a second later: What the early onset of boundary extension reveals about perception. Psychological Science 2008, 19:1007-1014.
28. Intraub H., Gottesman C.V., Bills A. Effects of perceiving and imagining scenes on memory for pictures of objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1998, 24:186-201.
29. Intraub H., Hoffman J.E., Wetherhold C.J., Stoehs S. More than meets the eye: The effect of planned fixations on scene representation. Perception and Psychophysics 2006, 5:759-769.
30. Intraub H., Richardson M. Wide-angle memories of close-up scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1989, 15:179-187.
31. Irwin D.E. Integrating information across saccadic eye movements. Current Directions in Psychological Science 1996, 5:94-100.
32. Jonides J.M., Yantis S. Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention. Perceptions and Psychophysics 1988, 43:346-354.
33. Logan G.D. Linguistic and conceptual control of visual spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology 1995, 28:103-174.
34. Mandler J.M., Johnson N.S. Some of the thousand words a picture is worth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 1976, 14:468-476.
35. Mathews A., Mackintosh B. Take a closer look: Emotion modifies the boundary extension effect. Emotion 2004, 4:36-45.
36. McConkie G.W., Currie C.B. Visual stability across saccades while viewing complex pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 1996, 22:563-581.
37. Nyström M. Is picture memory wide-angle?. Psychological Research Bulletin 1993, 33:1-16.
38. Rensink R.A. The dynamic representation of scenes. Visual Cognition 2000, 7:17-42.
39. Rensink R.A. Change detection. Annual Review of Psychology 2002, 53:245-277.
40. Rensink R.A. The modeling and control of visual perception. Integrated models of cognitive systems 2007, 132-148. Oxford University Press, New York. W. Gray (Ed.).
41. Rensink R.A., O'Regan J.K., Clark J.J. To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science 1997, 8:368-373.
42. Rensink R.A., O'Regan J.K., Clark J.J. On the failure to detect changes in scenes across brief interruptions. Visual Cognition 2000, 7:127-145.
43. Sanocki T. Representation and perception of spatial layout. Cognitive Psychology 2003, 47:43-86.
44. Sanocki T., Epstein W. Priming spatial layout of scenes. Psychological Science 1997, 8:374-378.
45. Sanocki T., Sulman N. Priming of simple and complex scene layout: Rapid function from the intermediate level. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2009, 35:735-749.
46. Sanocki T.T., Michelet K., Sellers E., Reynolds J. Functional representations of spatial layout can consist of independent pieces. Perception & Psychophysics 2006, 68:415-427.
47. Standing L. Learning 10,000 pictures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1973, 25:207-222.
48. Thorndyke P.W., Hayes-Roth B. Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cognitive Psychology 1982, 14:560-589.
49. Treisman A. The perception of features and objects. Visual attention 1998, 26-54. Oxford University Press, New York. R.D. Wright (Ed.).
50. Tversky B. Functional significance of visuospatial representations. Visuospatial thinking 2005, 1-34. Cambridge University Press, New York. P. Shah, A. Miyake (Eds.).
51. Yantis S., Hillstrom A.P. Stimulus-driven attentional capture: Evidence from equiluminant visual objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 1994, 20:95-107.