Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences logoLink to The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences
. 2016 Mar 17;73(4):622–629. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbw011

Boundary Extension Is Sensitive to Hand Position in Young and Older Adults

Kristi S Multhaup 1,✉, Margaret P Munger 1, Kendra C Smith 1,b
PMCID: PMC6018955  PMID: 26988866

Abstract

Objectives

Based on preliminary reports, we expected an age-related increase in boundary extension (BE), a phenomenon in which people falsely remember seeing more of a scene than was presented. Given recent data suggesting hand-centered attentional frames in young adults contrasted with body-centered attentional frames in older adults, we predicted hand-position effects on BE in young adults only.

Method

Participants (59 young, 60 older adults) viewed photographs of complex scenes (e.g., a market) and answered yes/no questions about each. Half answered with key presses while their hands were framing the computer monitor; half while their hands were on a lapdesk. At test, participants indicated whether photographs were the same as, or at a closer or wider angle than at study.

Results

Both age groups demonstrated BE. When study-test angles were the same, participants rated test pictures as closer than at study. When study-test angles differed, older adults showed less BE than young adults. For both same- and different-angle conditions, there was a main effect of hand position (less BE when hands framed the monitor than when on participants’ laps).

Discussion

The data confirm older adults show BE but show no age-related increase. Surprisingly, both young and older adults showed hand-centered attention.

Keywords: Aging, Boundary extension, Embodied cognition, Hand position, Source memory

Boundary extension (BE) occurs when people falsely remember seeing beyond the edges of a presented scene (e.g., Hubbard, Hutchison, & Courtney, 2010). Put simply, people see a picture and when it is shown again, they say that the same picture is shown from a closer angle than it was shown from earlier. This is a memory error and as such, one may expect to see an age-related increase in BE (cf. false fame effects, Multhaup, 1995; false alarms after self-referential processing, Rosa & Gutchess, 2013; suggestibility when recalling a story to an interviewer, Dukala & Polczyk, 2014). The present research explores BE in young and older adults. To foreshadow, we demonstrate an area of memory performance that is relatively preserved in older adults and add to the new literature on how hand position affects cognitive performance in young and older adults.

We designed the present study to assess (a) BE in older adults, (b) possible age-related differences in BE, (c) whether hand position (hands flanking the monitor or on a keyboard) affects BE like it affects other spatial-cognition tasks (e.g., Brockmole, Davoli, Abrams, & Witt, 2013; Garza, Strom, Wright, Roberts, & Reed, 2013; Wang, Du, He, & Zhang, 2014), and (d) whether there are age-related differences in how hand position affects BE.

We found only two prior studies of BE in older adults. Seamon, Schlegel, Hiester, Landau, and Blumenthal (2002) reported a tendency for older adults to show greater BE than young adults did (n = 16 per group) but called for studies with larger sample sizes. Kim, Dede, Hopkins, and Squire (2015) also demonstrated BE in older adults, but again with a small sample (n = 12). Given these small sample sizes, and that there were no young adults in Kim and colleagues’ study, the evidence of BE by older adults is preliminary and the question of whether there are age-related differences in BE remains open.

BE is similar to another memory error, representational momentum (RM), in which people misremember the final location of a moving object as being further along the motion trajectory than was shown (e.g., Hubbard, 1996; Intraub, 2002). BE and RM are errors of anticipation about what is just out of view (BE) or about what is next for a moving object (RM; Intraub, 2002; Munger, Owens, & Conway, 2005). In terms of age-related effects, Piotrowski and Jakobson (2011) found that older adults do not exhibit RM and attributed the lack of RM to age-related changes in how the brain processes motion. The present study assesses whether BE occurs in older adults. If older adults demonstrate BE, a task that does not involve motion, this finding would support the suggestion that RM and BE have distinct underlying mechanisms (Munger et al., 2005) and indirectly support the notion that age-related effects in RM may be due to changes in how the brain processes motion as we age (Piotrowski & Jakobson, 2011).

From a theoretical viewpoint, exploring age-related differences in BE contributes to investigation of why BE occurs. Intraub and Dickinson (2008) argue that BE is a source-memory error. As people process scenes at study, they add details to the surrounding background (an internal source). When at test the same scene is shown, it does not contain the internally added details—which people misattribute to being part of the original scene (external source) because they are unaware they made predictions that went beyond the present scene—so the test picture appears to be a closer angle than the remembered studied scene. This type of source error is akin to mistaking an inference in story comprehension, as when people hear that a spy threw a document into a fireplace and later incorrectly “recognize” the spy burned it (Johnson, Bransford, & Solomon, 1973); participants inferred the detail not originally in the story. Importantly, source-memory errors are not random; biases lead errors toward one source over another (e.g., Lindsay, 2008). For example, the it-had-to-be-you effect occurs when participants attribute falsely recognize items (new items incorrectly identified as from the study phase) to another person rather than to themselves (e.g., Lindsay, 2008). In BE studies, people rarely consider themselves as a possible source of information so the bias is to attribute boundary-extended images to the studied picture rather than to one’s self, culminating in BE. Source-memory errors are often magnified in older adults as compared with young adults (e.g., Lindsay, 2008; Multhaup, 1995). Age-related declines in source memory are likely when possible sources are highly similar (e.g., physically similar women; Ferguson, Hashtroudi, & Johnson, 1992). Given that actual and boundary-extended images are likely highly similar, detecting age-related increases in BE would support the view that BE is a source-memory error.

As well as adding a relatively large sample to minimal published findings regarding BE in older adults, the present study adds to the nascent literature regarding embodied cognition and aging. It was inspired by the Bloesch, Davoli, and Abrams’ (2013) report that in a reaching task young adults are sensitive to hand position, whereas older adults are not. Specifically, young adults’ response times were slowed when their starting hand position was near a distractor, but older adults’ response times were always slowest when distractors were close to their bodies. Particularly convincing in their data is that the age group distributions in the measure of response time interference barely overlapped; almost all young adults showed an action-centered reference frame and almost all older adults showed a body-centered reference frame (their Figure 3). Given how clearly those data demonstrated an age-related difference in sensitivity to hand position, we predicted that BE would be sensitive to hand position in young adults only.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Mean boundary ratings by age group and hand position for the (a) same study-test angles and (b) different study-test angles. Negative ratings indicate that the test scene appeared to be closer than the original, and ratings of 0 indicate that the test scene appeared identical to the original. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals of the mean. C = close-up, W = wide-angle; in condition labels, the first letter is the study angle and the second letter is the test angle.

The present study showed participants pictures that were either close-up (C) or wide-angle (W) at study and test (e.g., CC indicates close-up at both study and test; CW indicates close-up at study and wide-angle at test). Participants show BE when they (a) rate identical pictures as closer at test and (b) rate CW trials as closer to same than WC trials (Intraub & Dickinson, 2008). We examined whether age group and hand position affect BE patterns.

Method

The Davidson College Human Subjects Institutional Review Board approved this research. Participants provided written consent.

Participants

Our initial goal was 60 young and 60 older adults (30 per group is typical in the cognitive aging literature). We recruited 61 young (47 women; 18–29 years; M = 20.5, SD = 1.5) and 60 older adults (35 women; 62–89 years; M = 73.5, SD = 6.0). Data from two young adults were lost due to computer error. Older adults earned higher scores on a vocabulary test (Shipley, 1940; M = 35.6 out of 40, SD = 2.9) than young adults (M = 33.3 out of 40, SD = 3.1), t(119) = 4.23, p < .001, typical for the aging literature. Self-rated health on a scale from 1 (poor) to 4 (excellent) was similar across age groups (young: M = 3.5, SD = 0.6; older: M = 3.4, SD = 0.6), t < 1. We randomly assigned participants to hand-position condition (29 young in the lap condition; 30 each in the other three groups). There were no main effects of hand-position nor age group × hand-position interactions on age, vocabulary, or health measures, all F(1, 115) < 1.59, ps > .21.

Design

We used a 4 (trial type: CC, WW, CW, WC) × 2 (hand position: hands-up, lap) × 2 (age group: young, older) mixed-factor design in which trial type was the within-participants factor and hand position and age group were between-participants factors.

Materials

Stimuli included 96 color photographs of cities, markets, deserts, and forests that were presented one at a time, centered on a black screen (all landscape orientation; the stimuli were the same as in Munger & Multhaup, 2015, and Figure 1 shows examples). We started with 48 photographs, 12 per scene type, in a wide-angle view (720×480 pixels) and, similar to Dickinson and Intraub (2008), created a close-up view that was either 10%, 15%, or 20% enlarged and cropped to the same size as the original (720×480 pixels). Thus, the wide-angle and close-up photographs varied only in amount of background visible. For each scene type (e.g., cities), equal numbers of enlarged photographs were different by 10%, 15%, and 20% (four of each). The test view was the same as the study view on half of the trials (CC and WW) and different on the remaining half (CW and WC). Four counterbalanced sets of trials were used so that every picture appeared at study and test for same trial and different trial conditions across participants, and different test views were balanced across percent changes (CW and WC had equal numbers of 10%, 15%, and 20% changes).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Example photographs in 20% close-up (a) and wide-angle (b) views; stimuli were shown in color. Scenes are much smaller in the figure than they were when shown on the computer screen; all differences are quite noticeable on the screen versions.

Data were collected via Superlab (Cedrus) on a Dell Optiplex 9020 (1280×1024 screen resolution). Participants used a response pad (Cedrus model RB-830) and a standard keyboard. In the hands-up condition (Figure 2a), the response pad was attached to the left side of the monitor and the keyboard to the right. Participants rested their arms on a foam pad placed on boxes so they could comfortably reach the buttons with extended forearms. In the lap condition (Figure 2b), participants used a lapdesk with the response pad on the left and the keyboard on the right. Participants were 10–12 inches closer to the screen in the hands-up condition, but when Bertamini, Jones, Spooner, and Hecht (2005) systematically compared distance and magnification, they observed no differences in BE.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Participant position in hands-up (a) and hands-in-lap (b) conditions. In the hands-up condition, participants rested their forearms on a raised foam pad. In both conditions, participants were allowed to make minor adjustments for comfort (e.g., nudge keyboard a tad to the right). Stimuli were shown in color.

Procedure

Participants were run individually. Participants placed their left hand on the button box that is designed to allow button presses from the ring, middle, and pointer fingers and the thumb from a natural resting hand position. Participants also placed their right middle finger on the spacebar of the keyboard. The researcher read the instructions on the computer screen while participants followed along. Instructions indicated that participants should try to remember in detail the pictures they would see, including the background, and that to help participants remember details, they would answer questions about the pictures. Participants were instructed to answer these questions with a YES or NO by pressing their middle fingers on the response box or keyboard, respectively. Labels affixed to the top corners of the monitor reminded participants which side was YES and which side was NO.

In the study phase, a white fixation cross preceded each stimulus. Participants pressed the spacebar to see a photograph or paused to take a break. Each photograph was shown centered on a black screen for 15s. After 5s, the question Is there something you could pick up? appeared above the picture and participants hit the YES or NO key with the middle finger of their left or right hand, respectively. Five seconds later, the question Is there an item you could use as a tool? appeared below the picture; participants again hit the YES or NO key. Responding to these questions ensured participants were attending to the photographs and responding with their hands either surrounding the monitor or on their laps.

For the test phase, the researcher guided participants to (a) place their right middle fingers on the J key (with the raised bump) so their index fingers could easily reach the H and G keys and their ring fingers could easily reach the K and L keys and (b) keep their left hands on the response box so they could easily press buttons with their thumb and index, middle, and ring fingers. The test phase included photographs identical to those shown in the study phase (CC, WW) and photographs shown in a closer or wider angle than at study (WC, CW). Which photographs were in each condition was counterbalanced across participants. The researcher showed participants an example and answered questions before the test phase began. For each test picture, participants rated it relative to the study picture as a lot closer, a little closer, the same, a little farther away, or a lot farther away by pressing keys G, H, J, K, and L, respectively. Participants then rated their confidence as sure, pretty sure, not sure, or did not see the picture by pressing the response box with their index finger, middle finger, ring finger, or thumb, respectively. Ratings were self-paced with no time limits. Participants then completed an unrelated task, a vocabulary test, a demographic questionnaire, and a debriefing.

Results

Boundary Ratings

Test picture ratings of a lot closer, a little closer, the same, a little farther away, or a lot farther away were coded as −2, −1, 0, 1, and 2, respectively, as is common practice in the BE literature (cf. Hubbard et al., 2010; Intraub & Bodamer, 1993). Figure 3 shows the mean boundary ratings with 95% confidence intervals; when the confidence interval does not include 0, the condition mean is significantly different from 0 and when the confidence interval includes 0, it is not (Lane, n.d.). We conducted separate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) for same study-test angles (CC, WW) and different study-test angles (CW, WC).

On same-study-test-angle trials (CC, WW), BE is shown with negative ratings, reflecting participants rating identical pictures as closer at test than they were at study (e.g., Intraub & Dickinson, 2008). Figure 3a shows this BE pattern (the confidence intervals do not include 0 so the means are significantly different from 0). A 2 (same angle: CC, WW) × 2 (hand position: hands-up, lap) × 2 (age group: young, older) ANOVA revealed that BE was smaller for WW than CC, F(1, 115) = 12.87, p < .001, d = 0.26, and smaller for the hands-up than the lap condition, F(1, 115) = 9.05, p = .003, d = 0.51; no other effects were significant, Fs(1, 115) < 1.

On different-study-test-angle trials, BE is shown with ratings closer to 0 (same) for CW than for WC (e.g., Intraub & Dickinson, 2008). Figure 3b shows this BE pattern: when participants were shown a wider angle at test than at study (CW), mean ratings were closer to 0 than when participants were shown a closer angle at test than at study (WC). A 2 (different angle: CW, WC) × 2 (hand position: hands-up, lap) × 2 (age group: young, older) ANOVA revealed ratings closer to 0 for CW than WC, consistent with BE, F(1, 115) = 84.12, p < .001, d = 0.74, and ratings closer to 0 for the hands-up than the lap condition, F(1, 115) = 7.98, p = .006, d = 0.43. The only other significant effect was the age group × different angle interaction, F(1, 115) = 11.49, p < .001, d = 0.30 where young adults showed a larger difference between the ratings for CW and WC than older adults did, but the patterns for angle and hand position were similar across age groups (see Figure 3b). The two groups had similar ratings in the WC condition so the age-related difference appears rooted in the CW ratings where young adults’ means were closer to 0 than older adults’ means were.

To further understand this difference, and to follow the lead of Bloesch and colleagues (2013) in examining response distributions, we examined how many participants in each group had a mean rating in the CW condition that was positive (correctly rating the test picture as further away than the study picture). In the present data, 8 young adults in the lap condition (28%) had positive mean CW ratings compared with 14 young adults in the hands-up condition (47%). For older adults, four in the lap condition (13%) and six in the hands-up condition (20%) had positive mean CW ratings. The number of participants who had mean negative CW ratings in each of the four groups, respectively, were 20, 15, 24, and 21; the number who had mean 0 (same) ratings in each group, respectively, were 1, 1, 2, and 3. Thus, the age group × different angle interaction shown in Figure 3b is due to a higher number of young adults (22 of 59) with a mean positive rating for CW trials (a correct rating) compared with older adults (10 of 60).

Confidence Ratings

As is typically found in the BE literature (e.g., Intraub & Dickinson, 2008), confidence ratings suggest that participants are not simply guessing on the task. Young adults in the hands-up condition reported being sure, pretty sure, and not sure 23%, 53%, and 22%, respectively; young adults in the lap condition reported 25%, 46%, and 27%, respectively. Young adults in both conditions indicated that they did not remember the picture for 2% of test items. Older adults in the hands-up condition reported being sure, pretty sure, and not sure 40%, 46%, and 12%, respectively; older adults in the lap condition reported 31%, 59%, and 7%, respectively. Older adults in both conditions indicated that they did not remember the picture for 2% of test items. In short, participants were confident in their ratings.

Discussion

The present study (a) demonstrates BE by older adults (cf. Kim et al., 2015; Seamon et al., 2002); (b) found minimal age-related differences in BE (no age-related difference in analysis of CC and WW trials; less extreme difference between CW and WC ratings for older adults than for young adults); (c) extends reports of hand-position effects on visual cognition (e.g., Brockmole et al., 2013; Garza et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2014) to BE; and (d) failed to detect age-related differences in how hand position affects mean BE ratings.

Before discussing the implications of our findings, the confound between hand-position condition and distance from the stimuli needs to be addressed. Participants were 10–12 inches closer to the stimuli in the hands-up condition than in the lap condition (Figure 2). It is possible, but we think unlikely, that this distance is driving the observed hand-position differences. BE is typically strongest with closer-angle views (Figure 3a) that would predict larger BE for the physically closer position. We observed smaller BE for the hands-up position—opposite of the simple distance prediction (see also Bertamini et al., 2005).

The first contribution of the present data is a clear demonstration of BE by a large sample of older adults (n = 60 compared with prior reports where n = 16 or 12, Seamon et al., 2002, and Kim et al., 2015, respectively). This pattern is interesting theoretically because it contrasts with the Piotrowski and Jakobson (2011) report of older adults failing to show RM. Both BE and RM involve making predictions based on visual information, yet they may involve different underlying mechanisms (Munger et al., 2005). The present finding of robust BE in older adults contrasting with failure to find RM in older adults (Piotrowski & Jakobson, 2011) supports this suggestion and, as Piotrowski and Jakobson suggest, may highlight the importance of motion in eliciting age-related differences; we return to this point below.

The second contribution of the present study is the documentation that hand position affects both empirical measures of BE (judging the same angle to be closer at test than it was at study, rating CW trials as closer to 0 [same] than WC trials; see Figure 3), thus adding BE to the growing list of tasks affected by hand position (see Brockmole et al., 2013, for a brief review). Moreover, the present data show that the hand-position effect in BE extends beyond a young adult sample to older adults. We suggest that future BE studies include response distribution patterns to more fully describe what is driving mean performance. For example, Figure 3b shows that the young adults in the hands-up condition did not have a mean different from 0 in the CW condition. This was due to similar numbers of participants having positive (14) and negative (15) mean ratings, as opposed to most people having mean ratings of 0 (only one participant). Future research is needed to explore what drives individual differences toward positive or negative ratings; as discussed below, sensitivity to motion detection may play a role. These contributions are meaningful additions to the peer-reviewed literatures on aging, BE, and hand position. Beyond these contributions are the findings regarding where age-related differences do and do not occur.

Seamon and colleagues (2002) reported a tendency for age-related increases in BE when measured by a drawing task. By contrast, we found no age-related effects on a rating task for same-angle trials (CC and WW), the conditions that parallel the drawing task. This is contrary to what we expected based on the interpretation of BE as a source-memory error (e.g., Intraub & Dickinson, 2008). Although a lack of group differences is difficult to interpret, similar BE across age groups is consistent with reports that aging has minimal impact on object-centered attention (e.g., Lithfous, Dufour, Blanc, & Després, 2014). On the other hand, we did find an age-related difference in the BE pattern associated with different-angle trials. Young adults showed a more extreme difference between ratings of CW and WC trials than older adults did (Figure 3b). If anything, this suggests a reduced pattern of BE in older as compared with young adults. While not motion per se, the different-angle trials involve changes in visual information that is closer to the changes in visual information associated with motion than that found with the same-angle trials. Thus, detecting that older adults are less sensitive to these changes in visual information on the different-angle trials than young adults are is broadly consistent with Piotrowski and Jakobson’s (2011) interpretation of older adults’ insensitivity to implied motion on their RM task, namely that age-related differences in visual tasks may be more likely when motion is involved (see Wunch, Weigelt, & Stӧckel, 2015, for evidence of age-related sensitivity to anticipatory motor planning).

The present data do, however, contrast with the Bloesch and colleagues (2013) finding that young adults’ performance was more sensitive to hand position than older adults’ was. We failed to find evidence of an age × hand position interaction. One obvious difference between the studies is, again, related to motion. Participants in Bloesch and colleagues’ task had to reach their arms out to touch a target, whereas our participants held their hands in place and pressed different keys with their fingers (see Festman, Adam, Pratt, & Fischer, 2013, for evidence that an important contributing element to attentional map construction is hand movement). Thus, age-related differences in attentional frames may occur when arm and hand movements are executed, but not when only fine motor movements are required as in the present study. Future work should continue to test the conditions under which there are and are not age-related differences in attentional frames, as well as whether full movement is required to get age-related differences in attentional reference frames, or if only planned movements are sufficient.

Our complex findings may be due to BE existing at the intersection of attention, perception, and memory (Intraub & Dickinson, 2008). Costello and colleagues (2015) recently distinguished action-centered reference frames (e.g., sensitivity to space when using tools; Witt, 2011) that show age-related decreases, and embodied effects (e.g., distance estimation when walking appears difficult; Barsalou, 2008) that show age-related increases. The present task asked questions about grasping and tool use during the study phase but was not action-centered; age-related differences appeared on only one measure. Moreover, the degree to which a task relies on memory may be important. Dijkstra, Kaschak, and Zwaan (2007) reported that body posture facilitates autobiographical memory retrieval in young and older adults, with no age-related differences. Thus, the aging and embodied cognition literature may be even more complex than Costello and colleagues described (see Burke, Poyser, & Schiessl, 2015, for evidence of age-related declines on a task at the intersection of attention, motor movements, and memory). Further research that systematically varies how much a task references and/or engages action, for example, is needed, as is research that identifies which tasks involving movement and memory are sensitive to mild cognitive impairment (e.g., Rosa, Deason, Budson, & Gutchess, 2016) and which are not. The present findings that older adults, like young adults, show clear BE and demonstrate an influence of hand position on BE is one baseline finding on which future studies can build toward that broader effort.

Funding

This work was supported by Davidson Research Initiative (Duke Endowment) and Abernethy grants (Davidson College) to K. C. Smith. K. S. Multhaup was supported by National Institute on Aging at National Institutes of Health (grant 1 R15 AG038879-01A1).

Acknowledgments

We thank Catherine Stephan, Kathryn Kemp, Savannah Erwin, and Eric Alston for data collection assistance and Jessica J. Good and Mark E. Faust for manuscript comments. The data were presented at the 2015 Southeastern Psychological Association meeting.

References

  1. Barsalou L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01115.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bertamini M. Jones L. A. Spooner A., & Hecht H (2005). Boundary extension: The role of magnification, object size, context, and binocular information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1288–1307. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1288 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bloesch E. K. Davoli C. C., & Abrams R. A (2013). Age-related changes in attentional reference frames for peripersonal space. Psychological Science, 24, 557–561. doi:10.1177/0956797612457385 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brockmole J. R. Davoli C. C. Abrams R. A., & Witt J. K (2013). The world within reach: Effects of hand posture and tool use on visual cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 38–44. doi:10.1177/0963721412465065 [Google Scholar]
  5. Burke M. R. Poyser C., & Schiessl I (2015). Age-related deficits in visuospatial memory are due to changes in preparatory set and eye-hand coordination. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 70, 682–690. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbu027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Costello M. C. Bloesch E. K. Davoli C. C. Panting N. D. Abrams R. A., & Brockmole J. R (2015). Spatial representations in older adults are not modified by action: Evidence from tool use. Psychology and Aging. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/pag0000029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dickinson C. A., & Intraub H (2008). Transsaccadic representation of layout: What is the time course of boundary extension?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 543–555. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.34.3.543 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Dijkstra K. Kaschak M. P., & Zwaan R. A (2007). Body posture facilitates retrieval of autobiographical memories. Cognition, 102, 139–149. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.12.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dukala K., & Polczyk R (2014). Age and interviewer behavior as predictors of interrogative suggestibility. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 69, 348–355. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbt023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ferguson S. A. Hashtroudi S., & Johnson M. K (1992). Age differences in using source-relevant cues. Psychology and Aging, 7, 443–452. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Festman Y. Adam J. J. Pratt J., & Fischer M. H (2013). Both hand position and movement direction modulate visual attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–6. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00657. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Garza J. P. Strom M. J. Wright C. E. Roberts R. J. Jr., & Reed C. L (2013). Top-down influences mediate hand bias in spatial attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 819–823. doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0480-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hubbard T. L. (1996). Displacement in depth: Representational momentum and boundary extension. Psychological Research, 59, 33–47. doi:10.1007/BF00419832 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hubbard T. L. Hutchison J. L., & Courtney J. R (2010). Boundary extension: Findings and theories. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1467–1494. doi:10.1080/17470210903511236 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Intraub H. (2002). Anticipatory spatial representation of natural scenes: Momentum without movement?Visual Cognition, 9, 93–119. doi:10.1080/13506280143000340 [Google Scholar]
  16. Intraub H., & Bodamer J. L (1993). Boundary extension: Fundamental aspect of pictorial representation or encoding artifact?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1387–1397. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1387 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Intraub H., & Dickinson C (2008). False memory 1/20th of a second later: What the early onset of boundary extension reveals about perception. Psychological Science, 19, 1007–1014. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02192.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Johnson M. K. Bransford J. D., & Solomon S. K (1973). Memory for tacit implications of sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 98, 203–205. doi:10.1037/h0034290 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kim S. Dede A. J. O. Hopkins R. O., & Squire L. R (2015). Memory, scene construction, and the human hippocampus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 4767–4772. doi:10.1073/pnas.1503863112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Lane D. M.(n.d.). Significant testing and confidence intervals. In Lane D. M. (Project Leader), Online statistics education: An interactive multimedia course of study. Retrieved from http://onlinestatbook.com/2/logic_of_hypothesis_testing/sign_conf.html [Google Scholar]
  21. Lindsay D. S. (2008). Source monitoring. In Roediger H. L. III (Vol. Ed.) & Byrne J. (Series Ed.), Cognitive psychology of memory. Vol. 2 of Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (pp. 325–347). Oxford: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lithfous S. Dufour A. Blanc F., & Després O (2014). Allocentric but not egocentric orientation is impaired during normal aging: An ERP study. Neuropsychology, 28, 761–771. doi:10.1037/neu0000084 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Multhaup K. S. (1995). Aging, source, and decision criteria: When false fame errors do and do not occur. Psychology and Aging, 10, 492–497. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.10.3.492 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Munger M. P., & Multhaup K. S (2015). No imagination effect on boundary extension. Memory & Cognition. Advance online publication. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-015-0541-3 [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Munger M. P. Owens T. R., & Conway J. E (2005). Are boundary extension and representational momentum related?Visual Cognition, 12, 1041–1056. doi:10.1080/13506280444000643 [Google Scholar]
  26. Piotrowski A. S., & Jakobson L. S (2011). Representational momentum in older adults. Brain and Cognition, 77, 106–112. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Rosa N. M. Deason R. G. Budson A. E., & Gutchess A. H (2016). Source memory for self and other in patients with mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 71, 59–65. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbu062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Rosa N. M., & Gutchess A. H (2013). False memory in aging resulting from self-referential processing. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68, 882–892. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbt018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Seamon J. G. Schlegel S. E. Hiester P. M. Landau S. M., & Blumental B. F (2002). Misremembering pictured objects: People of all ages demonstrate the boundary extension illusion. American Journal of Psychology, 115, 151–167. doi:10.2307/1423432 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Shipley W. C. (1940). A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 9, 371–377. doi:10.1080/00223980.1940.9917704 [Google Scholar]
  31. Wang X. Du F. He X., & Zhang K (2014). Enhanced spatial stimulus-response mapping near the hands: The Simon Effect is moduated by hand-stimulus proximity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 2252–2265. doi:10.1037/a0038140 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Witt J. K. (2011). Action’s effect on perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 201–206. doi:10.1177/0963721411408770 [Google Scholar]
  33. Wunch K. Weigelt M., & Stӧckel T (2015). Anticipatory motor planning in older adults. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbv078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES