September 2015
Volume 15, Issue 12
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2015
Is Boundary Extension effected by the position and orientation of people in scenes?
Author Affiliations
  • Carmela Gottesman
    University of South Carolina, Salkehatchie
  • William Dodson
    University of South Carolina, Salkehatchie
Journal of Vision September 2015, Vol.15, 345. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Carmela Gottesman, William Dodson; Is Boundary Extension effected by the position and orientation of people in scenes?. Journal of Vision 2015;15(12):345. doi:

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Memory for scenes shows systematic consistent distortions, Boundary Extension, attributed to the creation and use of spatial layout representations in perceptual processing of scenes. Prior studies used scenes with mainly inanimate objects. However, many scenes we interact with in everyday life include people and social undercurrents. This study examined boundary memory for scenes focused on people, and the effects of their location, orientation and gaze direction. Experiment 1 demonstrated Boundary Extension for portrait pictures, head and torso pictures against natural backgrounds. Experiment 2 tested the effects of the location and orientation of the person in the picture and their gaze (looking toward the viewer or to the side). Participants viewed 24 pictures of people, in 16 pictures people were located close to a picture boundary, in eight of those they were oriented slightly away from that boundary, and in the other eight they oriented towards that close boundary. In the remaining pictures people were located in the middle. In each of these conditions half the people where looking at the camera and half were looking in the direction their body was oriented. A three-choice test followed. One choice had uniform extended boundaries. In another choice, extension was bigger in the direction the person was oriented towards; in the last choice extension was bigger in the opposite direction. Participants' choices indicate that boundaries closer to the person in the pictures were expanded more than boundaries farther from the person. Unexpectedly, gaze didn't affect the degree of directional extension. However, extension was stronger in the direction that the person's body was oriented towards. This effect was strong both when the person was located closer to that boundary and also when the person was in the middle of the picture, indicating preferential treatment to the area the person is directed towards.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2015


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.