ArticleJournal of vision2025
Boundary extension during naturalistic viewing.
Article in Journal of vision, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Boundary extension refers to a phenomenon in which individuals are likely to remember an image as having more content beyond its actual borders, mistakenly adding details that might have been just beyond the original edges. Despite the wealth of research published about the topic over many decades, most research has used simple two-dimensional (2D) images as stimuli. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence that boundary extension as a phenomenon generalizes to real-world scenarios with naturalistic viewing behavior. To address this gap, we designed a virtual reality (VR) experiment during which the participants (N = 60) were freely able to visually explore naturalistic three-dimensional indoor environments surrounding them. In the experiment, each participant visited each of the 20 virtual rooms twice: first to view the scene and then to complete a task. Their task during the second visit was to move to the location from which they had originally viewed the scene, hence matching their view of the scene to what they remembered seeing before. Especially for close-up views, participants ended their task at a location where their field of view of the scene was wider compared to the initial view, hence indicating boundary extension. The effect was also greater when the movement direction was forward from a wider field of view than that of the original view. Both findings are consistent with previous research and demonstrate that boundary extension is not limited to looking at 2D images but can also occur during naturalistic viewing scenarios. As our method showed no visible boundaries in the stimuli, our results suggest that the existence of such boundaries is not critical for eliciting boundary extension.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.