August 2012
Volume 12, Issue 9
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2012
Using Boundary Extension To Assess Memory For Scene Views Across Changes In Object Orientation
Author Affiliations
  • Christopher Dickinson
    Department of Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences, Appalachian State University
  • Dan LaCombe
    Department of Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences, Appalachian State University
  • John Nichols
    Department of Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences, Appalachian State University
  • Sarah Hinnant
    Department of Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences, Appalachian State University
  • Elizabeth Rickard
    Department of Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences, Appalachian State University
  • Xenophon Sternbergh
    Department of Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences, Appalachian State University
Journal of Vision August 2012, Vol.12, 1071. doi:10.1167/12.9.1071
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Christopher Dickinson, Dan LaCombe, John Nichols, Sarah Hinnant, Elizabeth Rickard, Xenophon Sternbergh; Using Boundary Extension To Assess Memory For Scene Views Across Changes In Object Orientation. Journal of Vision 2012;12(9):1071. doi: 10.1167/12.9.1071.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

We asked whether the spatial expanse of scene views can be judged across changes in object orientation based on predicted differences in boundary extension (BE) as a function of object orientation. Stimuli were photographs of overhead scene views showing an object against a natural ground surface (e.g., a flashlight on grass), shown within a square view-window. Objects filled views in one dimension only (e.g., a screwdriver, hammer). On each trial, observers (N=48) viewed a 250-ms picture followed by a 250-ms mask and test picture. Half the objects were vertical; the other half horizontal. On half the trials, the object in the test view was in the same orientation as the stimulus view (VV and HH trials); in the other half, it was in the complementary orientation (VH and HV trials). Stimulus and test views were always close-ups. Horizontal-vertical viewing information was made comparable by placing square frames in front of monitors, with square cutouts for stimuli. At test, observers rated the test picture’s view as the same view, more close-up, or more wide-angle than the stimulus view on a continuous sliding scale. A negative rating significantly less than zero ("same view") would indicate BE. We hypothesized that vertical-object stimuli would elicit more BE than horizontal-object stimuli (as in Dickinson et al., VSS 2011), resulting in VH stimulus-test pairs being rated more similar than HV pairs. In addition to finding significant BE for VV and HH trials (mean ratings: –.19 and –.13; both ps <.001), we found a VH-HV asymmetry: VH pairs were rated as more similar than HV pairs (–.05 vs. –.28; p <.001), which is analogous to the CW-WC asymmetry indicative of BE. The results suggest that observers can judge the spatial expanse of views independent of object orientation and provides further support for the finding that vertical-object scene views are perceived as more close-up than horizontal-object scene views.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×