Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38530622›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2025

Object-based attention during scene perception elicits boundary contraction in memory.

Elizabeth H Hall, Joy J Geng

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Elizabeth H HallDepartment of Psychology, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, 95616, USA. ehhall@ucdavis.edu.
Joy J GengDepartment of Psychology, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, 95616, USA.

Funding

Quantifying the attentional templateR01MH113855 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI GENG, JOY JIA · 2018 to 2022
$1.9M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH113855
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Boundary contraction and extension are two types of scene transformations that occur in memory. In extension, viewers extrapolate information beyond the edges of the image, whereas in contraction, viewers forget information near the edges. Recent work suggests that image composition influences the direction and magnitude of boundary transformation. We hypothesize that selective attention at encoding is an important driver of boundary transformation effects, selective attention to specific objects at encoding leading to boundary contraction. In this study, one group of participants (N = 36) memorized 15 scenes while searching for targets, while a separate group (N = 36) just memorized the scenes. Both groups then drew the scenes from memory with as much object and spatial detail as they could remember. We asked online workers to provide ratings of boundary transformations in the drawings, as well as how many objects they contained and the precision of remembered object size and location. We found that search condition drawings showed significantly greater boundary contraction than drawings of the same scenes in the memorize condition. Search drawings were significantly more likely to contain target objects, and the likelihood to recall other objects in the scene decreased as a function of their distance from the target. These findings suggest that selective attention to a specific object due to a search task at encoding will lead to significant boundary contraction.

Indexed as

AttentionMental RecallPattern Recognition, VisualSpace PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultBoundary extensionObject affordancesScene perceptionSelective attention

Identifiers

PMID38530622
PMCPMC11779785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.