Vantage point in episodic memory

Abstract

Universityundergraduates undertook a seriesof manual tasks (e.g., shaping objects out of clay) and later recalled the experiences they had while doing so from either a field or an observer vantage point. In the former case, the subjects mentally reinstated the original task environment as if they were seeing it again through their own eyes; in the latter condition, the original task environment was envisioned from the perspective of a detached spectator. Analysis of the subjects' recollectionsrevealedmarked differencesin the contents of field and observer memories. For instance, whereas field memories afforded richer accounts of the affective reactions, physical sensations, and psychological states that the subjects experienced as they performed the tasks, observer memories included more information about how the subjects looked, what they did, or where things were. Discussion focuses on prospects for future researchwhose aim would be to investigate the forensic and clinical implications of the field/observer distinction.

Mental imagery of positive and neutral memories: A fMRI study comparing field perspective imagery to observer perspective imagery

“…Imagery perspective has shown to influence what is recalled (McIsaac & Eich, 2002), processing style 2 We also hypothesized differential activity for field and observer perspective in the amygdala. As activation in these structures are commonly in a small voxel range, we performed a ROI-analysis using a mask of the left and right amygdala according to the Talairach coordinates (Talairach & Tournoux, 1988).…”

“…Imagery perspective can influence the information that is recalled about events and the intensity of the emotional response. Previous research has indicated that individuals imagining memories from a field perspective gave more statements concerning affective reactions, physical sensations, and psychological states, whereas memories imagined from an observer perspective included more information concerning how the person looked, physical actions, or spatial relations (McIsaac & Eich, 2002). It has also been proposed that thinking about past events in terms of the experiences evoked by features of the event is related to a field perspective, as compared to thinking about the event in terms of its broader context or meaning in an individuals' life which is related to an observer perspective (Libby & Eibach, 2011).…”

“…Holmes et al, 2008;McIsaac & Eich, 2002), differences between imagery perspectives could be larger for emotional memories because more variance in the emotional response is possible. As neutral memories are expected to evoke no, or just a small emotional response, differences between imagery perspectives with regard to the emotional response might be smaller, also at the neurobiological level.…”

“…Field perspective imagery has been related to a greater emotional response than imagery from an observer perspective and/or verbal processing (Holmes et al, 2008;Holmes et al, 2009;Holmes et al, 2006) and individuals imagining memories from a field perspective perceive their memories as more emotional than individuals imagining memories from an observer perspective (McIsaac & Eich, 2002). Alternatively, it has been proposed that imagery perspective does not directly influences emotional impact, but that the differential effects of imagery perspective on emotional impact depend on whether considering the event in terms of its broader context or meaning in an individuals' life (during observer perspective) decreases or increases the emotional power (Libby & Eibach, 2011).…”

Memory Conformity: Actors and Bystanders

“…People can re-experience an event by remembering it with others and details may be added or removed, with little or no consequence (McIsaac & Eich, 2002). However, there are times when remembering needs to be accurate (e.g., in criminal investigations).…”