Abstract
Serial visual presentations of images exist both in the laboratory and increasingly on virtual platforms such as social media feeds. However, the way we interact with information differs between these. In many laboratory experiments participants view stimuli passively, whereas on social media people tend to interact with information actively. This difference could influence the way information is remembered, which carries practical and theoretical implications. In the current study, 821 participants viewed streams containing seven landscape images that were presented at either a self-paced (active) or an automatic (passive) rate. Critically, the presentation speed in each automatic trial was matched to the speed of a self-paced trial for each participant. Both memory accuracy and memory confidence were greater on self-paced compared to automatic trials. These results indicate that active, self-paced progression through images increases the likelihood of them being remembered, relative to when participants have no control over presentation speed and duration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Anonymized data and experiment materials are available on OSF: https://osf.io/zm78v
Code availability
Experimental code is available on OSF: https://osf.io/zm78v
References
Afrooz, A., White, D., & Parolin, B. (2018). Effects of active and passive exploration of the built environment on memory during wayfinding. Applied Geography, 101(2018), 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.10.009
Bainbridge, W. A., Dilks, D. D., & Oliva, A. (2017). Memorability: A stimulus-driven perceptual neural signature distinctive from memory. NeuroImage, 149, 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.01.063
Baror, S., & He, B. J. (2021). Spontaneous perception: A framework for task-free, self-paced perception. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 7(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niab016
Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Berk, R., Bollen, K. A., Brembs, B., Brown, L., Camerer, C., Cesarini, D., Chambers, C. D., Clyde, M., Cook, T. D., De Boeck, P., Dienes, Z., Dreber, A., Easwaran, K., Efferson, C., …, Johnson, V. E. (2018). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z
Berberian, B., Sarrazin, J. C., Le Blaye, P., & Haggard, P. (2012). Automation technology and sense of control: A window on human agency. PLoS ONE, 7(3), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034075
Brady, T. F., Konkle, T., Alvarez, G. A., & Oliva, A. (2008). Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(38), 14325–14329. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0803390105
Chen, H.-C., & Tsoi, K.-C. (1988). Factors affecting the readability of moving text on a computer display. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 30(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088803000103
Chun, M. M., & Potter, M. C. (1995). A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 21(1), 109–127.
Chun, M. M., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2007). Interactions between attention and memory. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 17, 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2007.03.005
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 19(2), 189–210. https://doi.org/10.2307/249688
Craddock, M., Martinovic, J., & Lawson, R. (2011). An advantage for active versus passive aperture-viewing in visual object recognition. Perception, 40(10), 1154–1163. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6974
Dux, P. E., & Marois, R. (2009). The attentional blink: A review of data and theory. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 71(8), 1683–1700. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.8.1683
Endsley, M. R. (2017). From here to autonomy: Lessons learned from human–automation research. Human Factors, 59(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816681350
Faul, F., Erfedler, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Hine, K., & Tasaki, H. (2019). Active view and passive view in virtual reality have different impacts on memory and impression. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2416. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02416
Hommel, B. (2010). Grounding attention in action control: The intentional control of selection. In B. Bruya (Ed.), Effortless attention: A new perspective in the cognitive science of attention and action (pp. 121–140). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262013840.003.0006
Ichikawa, M., & Masakura, Y. (2006). Manual control of the visual stimulus reduces the flash-lag effect. Vision Research, 46(14), 2192–2203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2005.12.021
Inquisit 6 (2021). [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://www.millisecond.com/support/citation
Isola, P., Xiao, J., Torralba, A., & Oliva, A. (2011). What makes an image memorable? CVPR, 2011, 145–152.
Khosla, A., Raju, A. S., Torralba, A., & Oliva, A. (2015). Understanding and predicting image memorability at a large scale. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2015, 2390–2398. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2015.275
Kinder, K. T., & Buss, A. T. (2021). The effect of motor engagement on memory: Testing a motor-induced encoding account. Memory & Cognition, 49(3), 586–599. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01113-6
Knoblich, G., & Flach, R. (2001). Predicting the effects of actions: Interactions of perception and action. Psychological Science, 12(6), 467–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00387
Konkle, T., Brady, T. F., Alvarez, G. A., & Oliva, A. (2010). Scene memory is more detailed than you think: The role of categories in visual long-term memory. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1551–1556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610385359
Körber, M., Cingel, A., Zimmermann, M., & Bengler, K. (2015). Vigilance decrement and passive fatigue caused by monotony in automated driving. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 2403–2409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.499
Maruya, K., Yang, E., & Blake, R. (2007). Voluntary action influences visual competition. Psychological Science, 18(12), 1090–1098. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02030.x
Merritt, S. M., Ako-Brew, A., Bryant, W. J., Staley, A., McKenna, M., Leone, A., & Shirase, L. (2019). Automation-induced complacency potential: Development and validation of a new scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(FEB), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00225
Metzger, U., & Parasuraman, R. (1999). Free flight and the air traffic controller: Active control versus passive monitoring. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 43(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129904300101
Miller, A. L., & Unsworth, N. (2021). Attending to encode: The role of consistency and intensity of attention in learning ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 121, 104276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2021.104276
Potter, M. C., & Levy, E. I. (1969). Recognition memory for a rapid sequence of pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027470
Russell, M. C., & Chaparro, B. S. (2001). Exploring effects of speed and font size with RSVP. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 45(6), 640–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120104500614
Swallow, K. M., & Jiang, Y. V. (2010). The Attentional Boost Effect: Transient increases in attention to one task enhance performance in a second task. Cognition, 115(1), 118–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.003
Swallow, K. M., & Jiang, Y. V. (2013). Attentional load and attentional boost: A review of data and theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00274
Tenhundfeld, N. L., & Witt, J. K. (2020). Human and machine: Evaluating whether action automation influences visual perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(6), 3234–3249. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02037-8
Thunell, E., & Thorpe, S. J. (2019). Memory for repeated images in rapid-serial-visual-presentation streams of thousands of images. Psychological Science, 30(7), 989–1000. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619842251
Voss, J. L., Gonsalves, B. D., Federmeier, K. D., Tranel, D., & Cohen, N. J. (2011). Hippocampal brain-network coordination during volitional exploratory behavior enhances learning. Nature Neuroscience, 14(1), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2693
Witkowski, M., & Spence, R. (2012). Rapid serial visual presentation: An approach to design. Information Visualization, 11(4), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473871612439643
Yebra, M., Galarza-Vallejo, A., Soto-Leon, V., Gonzalez-Rosa, J. J., de Berker, A. O., Bestmann, S., Oliviero, A., Kroes, M. C. W., & Strange, B. A. (2019). Action boosts episodic memory encoding in humans via engagement of a noradrenergic system. Nature Communications, 10(1), 3534. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11358-8
Zmigrod, S., & Hommel, B. (2013). Feature integration across multimodal perception and action: A review. Multisensory Research, 26(1–2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-00002390
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the casual teaching staff on PSYC1101: Mind and Brain, 2022, for debriefing our participants and facilitating the lab report assignment for which these data were collected, as well as our students who generously engaged and contributed to this research.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization, B.L.K.; methodology, B.L.K., S.B.M., T.G., and V.B.; software, B.L.K.; formal analysis, B.L.K. and V.B.; investigation, B.L.K. and V.B.; resources, B.L.K. and V.B.; writing – original draft preparation, B.L.K.; writing – review and editing, B.L.K., S.B.M., T.G., and V.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest/competing interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Ethics approval
The study was approved by the UWA Human Research Ethics Office, Protocol 2022/ET000019.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.
Consent for publication
We only report data from participants that consented their data to be used for research purposes.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kennedy, B.L., Most, S.B., Grootswagers, T. et al. Memory benefits when actively, rather than passively, viewing images. Atten Percept Psychophys 86, 1–8 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-023-02814-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-023-02814-1