Depth Rotation and Mirror-image Reflection Reduce Affective Preference As Well As Recognition Memory for Pictures of Novel Objects

Overview

Journal Mem Cognit

Specialty Psychology

Date 2005 Apr 9

PMID 15813498

Citations 3

Authors

Rebecca Lawson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In two experiments, the identification of novel 3-D objects was worse for depth-rotated and mirror-reflected views, compared with the study view in an implicit affective preference memory task, as well as in an explicit recognition memory task. In Experiment 1, recognition was worse and preference was lower when depth-rotated views of an object were paired with an unstudied object relative to trials when the study view of that object was shown. There was a similar trend for mirror-reflected views. In Experiment 2, the study view of an object was both recognized and preferred above chance when it was paired with either depth-rotated or mirror-reflected views of that object. These results suggest that view-sensitive representations of objects mediate performance in implicit, as well as explicit, memory tasks. The findings do not support the claim that separate episodic and structural description representations underlie performance in implicit and explicit memory tasks, respectively.

Citing Articles

Trait and state anxiety reduce the mere exposure effect.

Ladd S, Gabrieli J Front Psychol. 2015; 6:701.

PMID: 26074851 PMC: 4446535. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00701.

Item to decision mapping in rapid response learning.

Schnyer D, Dobbins I, Nicholls L, Davis S, Verfaellie M, Schacter D Mem Cognit. 2007; 35(6):1472-82.

PMID: 17948070 PMC: 2034352. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193617.

Cerebral asymmetries in sleep-dependent processes of memory consolidation.

Peigneux P, Schmitz R, Willems S Learn Mem. 2007; 14(6):400-6.

PMID: 17554084 PMC: 1896090. DOI: 10.1101/lm.551207.

References

Meier B, Perrig W . Low reliability of perceptual priming: consequences for the interpretation of functional dissociations between explicit and implicit memory. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2000; 53(1):211-33. DOI: 10.1080/713755878. View

Whittlesea B, Price J . Implicit/explicit memory versus analytic/nonanalytic processing: rethinking the mere exposure effect. Mem Cognit. 2001; 29(2):234-46. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194917. View

Fiser J, Biederman I . Invariance of long-term visual priming to scale, reflection, translation, and hemisphere. Vision Res. 2001; 41(2):221-34. DOI: 10.1016/s0042-6989(00)00234-0. View

Vernon D, Lloyd-Jones T . The role of colour in implicit and explicit memory performance. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2003; 56(5):779-802. DOI: 10.1080/02724980244000684. View

Schacter D, Cooper L, Delaney S . Implicit memory for unfamiliar objects depends on access to structural descriptions. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1990; 119(1):5-24. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.119.1.5. View

Lawson R, Humphreys G . View-specific effects of depth rotation and foreshortening on the initial recognition and priming of familiar objects. Percept Psychophys. 1998; 60(6):1052-66. DOI: 10.3758/bf03211939. View

Milliken B, Jolicoeur P . Size effects in visual recognition memory are determined by perceived size. Mem Cognit. 1992; 20(1):83-95. DOI: 10.3758/bf03208257. View

Jolicoeur P . A size-congruency effect in memory for visual shape. Mem Cognit. 1987; 15(6):531-43. DOI: 10.3758/bf03198388. View

Newell B, Bright J . The subliminal mere exposure effect does not generalize to structurally related stimuli. Can J Exp Psychol. 2003; 57(1):61-8. DOI: 10.1037/h0087413. View

10.

Liu T, Cooper L . The influence of task requirements on priming in object decision and matching. Mem Cognit. 2001; 29(6):874-82. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196416. View

11.

Srinivas K . Representation of rotated objects in explicit and implicit memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1995; 21(4):1019-36. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.21.4.1019. View

12.

Humphrey G, Khan S . Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects. Can J Psychol. 1992; 46(2):170-90. DOI: 10.1037/h0084320. View

13.

Cooper L, Schacter D, Ballesteros S, Moore C . Priming and recognition of transformed three-dimensional objects: effects of size and reflection. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1992; 18(1):43-57. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.18.1.43. View

14.

Buchner A, Wippich W . On the reliability of implicit and explicit memory measures. Cogn Psychol. 2000; 40(3):227-59. DOI: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0731. View

15.

Seamon J, Crowley M, Wilson S, Weber W, ORourke C, Mahoney J . A mere exposure effect for transformed three-dimensional objects: effects of reflection, size, or color changes on affect and recognition. Mem Cognit. 1997; 25(3):367-74. DOI: 10.3758/bf03211292. View

16.

Squire L . Memory and the hippocampus: a synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans. Psychol Rev. 1992; 99(2):195-231. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.99.2.195. View

17.

Tarr M . Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013; 2(1):55-82. DOI: 10.3758/BF03214412. View

18.

Bar M, Biederman I . Localizing the cortical region mediating visual awareness of object identity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999; 96(4):1790-3. PMC: 15596. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.96.4.1790. View

19.

Buchner A, Brandt M . Further evidence for systematic reliability differences between explicit and implicit memory tests. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2003; 56(2):193-209. DOI: 10.1080/02724980244000260. View

20.

Srinivas K . Size and reflection effects in priming: a test of transfer-appropriate processing. Mem Cognit. 1996; 24(4):441-52. DOI: 10.3758/bf03200933. View