ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2021
Hi-def memories of lo-def scenes.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual short-term memory, culture, and image structure.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Lifting the veil: probing altered visual perception in derealization.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2025Article
- Higher-contrast images are better remembered during naturalistic encoding.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study of visual memory is typically concerned with an image's content: How well, and with what precision, we can recall which objects, people, or features we have seen in the past. But images also vary in their quality: The same object or scene may appear in an image that is sharp and highly resolved, or it may appear in an image that is blurry and faded. How do we remember those properties? Here six experiments demonstrate a new phenomenon of "vividness extension": a tendency to (mis)remember images as though they are "enhanced" versions of themselves - that is, sharper and higher quality than they actually appeared at the time of encoding. Subjects briefly saw images of scenes that varied in how blurry they were, and then adjusted a new image to be as blurry as the original. Unlike an old photograph that fades and blurs, subjects misremembered scenes as more vivid (i.e., less blurry) than those scenes had actually appeared moments earlier. Follow-up experiments extended this phenomenon to saturation and pixelation - with subjects recalling scenes as more colorful and resolved - and ruled out various forms of response bias. We suggest that memory misrepresents the quality of what we have seen, such that the world is remembered as more vivid than it is.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33443710What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.