ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2021
Eye-movements reveal semantic interference effects during the encoding of naturalistic scenes in long-term memory.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gaze dynamics during natural scene memorization and recognition.Cognition · 2025Article
- The upside of cumulative conceptual interference on exemplar-level mnemonic discrimination.Memory & cognition · 2024Article
- Distinct eye movement patterns to complex scenes in Alzheimer's disease and Lewy body disease.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Eye tracking evidence for the reinstatement of emotionally negative and neutral memories.PloS one · 2024Article
- The extent and specificity of visual exploration determines the formation of recollected memories in complex scenes.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- Similar mechanisms of temporary bindings for identity and location of objects in healthy ageing: an eye-tracking study with naturalistic scenes.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Similarity-based semantic interference (SI) hinders memory recognition. Within long-term visual memory paradigms, the more scenes (or objects) from the same semantic category are viewed, the harder it is to recognize each individual instance. A growing body of evidence shows that overt attention is intimately linked to memory. However, it is yet to be understood whether SI mediates overt attention during scene encoding, and so explain its detrimental impact on recognition memory. In the current experiment, participants watched 372 photographs belonging to different semantic categories (e.g., a kitchen) with different frequency (4, 20, 40 or 60 images), while being eye-tracked. After 10 minutes, they were presented with the same 372 photographs plus 372 new photographs and asked whether they recognized (or not) each photo (i.e., old/new paradigm). We found that the more the SI, the poorer the recognition performance, especially for old scenes of which memory representations existed. Scenes more widely explored were better recognized, but for increasing SI, participants focused on more local regions of the scene in search for its potentially distinctive details. Attending to the centre of the display, or to scene regions rich in low-level saliency was detrimental to recognition accuracy, and as SI increased participants were more likely to rely on visual saliency. The complexity of maintaining faithful memory representations for increasing SI also manifested in longer fixation durations; in fact, a more successful encoding was also associated with shorter fixations. Our study highlights the interdependence between attention and memory during high-level processing of semantic information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34009623What 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.