Searching for boundary extension

Abstract

Bainbridge and Baker [1] argue that boundary extension (BE), false memory beyond a view, is an artifact of stimulus selection. They dismiss theoretical explanations that include scene construction [2,3], and suggest removal of BE from textbooks. Their empirical work is an admirable study of scene errors, but the bridge between their data and their sweeping conclusions about BE is not well-grounded. They claim that BE is considered 'universal' and, thus, their observation of contraction (loss of peripheral content) in addition to extension violates a fundamental premise. They claim that reliance on narrow 'recycled' stimulus sets: object(s) centered on 'generic', non-scenic backgrounds created the artifact. Neither claim is correct.