Effects of Physical Viewpoint and Individual Differences in Imagery Vividness on False Recognition

Effects of Physical Viewpoint and Individual Differences in Imagery Vividness on False Recognition | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Effects of Physical Viewpoint and Individual Differences in Imagery Vividness on False Recognition Kyoko Hine, Ryunosuke Hayashida, Shuma Fujikawa, Shigeki Nakauchi This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9263360/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 14 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Human memory, which is reconstructive rather than a perfect record of past experiences, can lead to not only true but also false recognition. In this study, we examined how retrieval viewpoint interacts with individual differences in visual imagery to influence memory distortion. Participants viewed a 360° recording of a neutral scene via a head-mounted display and, after a one-week delay, performed a recognition task from either an original first-person perspective or a bird’s-eye viewpoint. Results revealed an interaction between viewpoint and imagery vividness: individuals with high-imagery vividness exhibited increased false recognition from the first-person viewpoint, whereas individuals with low-imagery vividness were more prone to experience increased false recognition under the bird’s-eye viewpoint. Analyses of hit and false-alarm rates indicated that these effects were driven by shifts in response criteria rather than discrimination ability, suggesting that viewpoint and imagery bias memory judgments without changing sensitivity. These findings highlight that memory distortions depend on both external perspective and internal cognitive style, thereby emphasizing the role of individual differences in mnemonic processes. Biological sciences/Neuroscience Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology recognition physical viewpoint vividness of visual imagery head-mounted display Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Human memory is not an accurate record of past experiences, but rather, it is a reconstructive process that is passed through both encoding and retrieval phases. As a consequence, retrieved contents can lead not only to accurate recollections but also to systematic distortions, including false memories, i.e., instances in which individuals remember events that did not occur (Loftus & Pickrell, 1995 ; Schacter, Norman, & Koutstaal, 2000 ). To understand how memory is reconstructed, it is important to clarify the conditions under which false memories arise, particularly when retrieval contexts differ from the original encoding context. One factor known to influence memory retrieval is the reinstatement of contextual information present at encoding. According to principles of context-dependent memory, overlap between encoding and retrieval conditions generally facilitates memory performance (Tulving & Thomson, 1973 ). Visual context, including the observer’s physical viewpoint, is one of the candidates for such contextual information. Changes in viewpoint between encoding and retrieval can alter the availability and/or accessibility of perceptual details, potentially influencing false recognitions. Previous research has revealed that viewpoint manipulations can affect memory performance (Diwadkar & McNamara, 1997 ; Garsoffky, Schwan, & Hesse, 2002 ). For example, Macrotti and Jacques (2022) demonstrated that retrieved contents recalled from a first-person viewpoint that matched the encoding viewpoint differed from those recalled from a third-person perspective. Still, it is unclear how viewpoint, whether first person or third person, affects false recognition. Importantly, the influence of viewpoint effect on memory is not identical across individuals. One key source of individual variability lies in visual imagery ability. Visual imagery vividness reflects the extent to which individuals can generate detailed and perceptually rich mental images and is commonly assessed using the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ; Marks, 1973 ). Individuals with high imagery vividness tend to rely more strongly on imagery-based representations during encoding and retrieval, whereas those with lower imagery vividness may depend more on abstract or verbal representations (Berger & Gaunitz, 1979 ; McKelvie & Demers, 1979 ). Such differences suggest that the effects of viewpoint reinstatement on memory may be moderated by imagery vividness. From a theoretical perspective, fuzzy-trace theory provides beneficial frameworks for understanding how viewpoint and imagery vividness may interact to influence memory performance. Fuzzy-trace theory proposes that memory encoding produces both verbatim traces, which preserve precise perceptual details, and gist traces, which capture the general meaning of an event (Brainerd & Reyna, 2002 ). False memories are more likely when retrieval relies on gist-based representations, particularly after delays during which verbatim traces have weakened (Aadie & Camos, 2018). Previous research suggests that individuals with high imagery vividness rely more heavily on imagery-based representations during encoding (Berger & Gaunitz, 1979 ; McKelvie & Demers, 1979 ). Accordingly, under conditions that support perceptual reinstatement—such as retrieval from an identical physical viewpoint—these individuals may be more likely to access perceptually detailed, verbatim-like information. In contrast, changes in viewpoint may disrupt access to such detailed representations, increasing reliance on gist-based information and thereby elevating false recognition. Based on these theoretical considerations, the present study examined how physical viewpoint at retrieval influenced recognition performance and how this effect was modulated by individual differences in imagery vividness. To systematically control visual viewpoint, we employed a head-mounted display (HMD) that allowed participants to experience a neutral event from a specific physical perspective. After a one-week delay, participants completed a recognition task while viewing the scene from either the same physical viewpoint as during the encoding or from a third-person viewpoint. In the current study, a bird-eye viewpoint was employed as the third-person perspective. Presenting another person’s viewpoint as the third person would require participants to imagine being that person, introducing variability and making it more difficult to control object visibility. The bird’s-eye view allowed consistent visual access for all participants. Imagery vividness was assessed using VVIQ. We hypothesized that viewpoint reinstatement would differentially affect false recognition as a function of imagery vividness. Specifically, individuals with high imagery vividness were expected to exhibit higher sensitivity in the first-person viewpoint than in the bird’s-eye viewpoint, whereas individuals with low imagery vividness were not expected to reveal such a viewpoint effect, reflecting differential reliance on imagery-based versus gist-based memory representations. Experiment Method Participants The number of participants was calculated using PANGEA v0.2 (Westfall, 2016 ) for an effect size ( d ) of 0.45 and a power of 0.80. PANGEA suggested 44 participants. On the basis of these calculations, 44 students (six females and 38 males; mean age 21.0 years; SD = 1.4 years) participated in the current experiment. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. The experimental procedures were approved by the Committee for Human Research at Toyohashi University of Technology (approval number: 2022-20). All the experiments were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Stimuli We filmed the preparations for a farewell party scene using a Ricoh Theta V 360-degree camera (Insta360 X3, Shenzhen Arashi Vision Co., Ltd.). The duration of the scene was seven minutes (Fig. 1 ). The total number of people presented in the scene was six. These people took turns entering and leaving the room for the preparation with various objects. The 360-degree camera was positioned 70 cm above the floor along the wall during the recording. Additionally, we took two pictures that presented the same room, excluding objects (Fig. 2 ). Materials and procedure This experiment was conducted over two separate days. On the first day, the participants wore an HMD (Varjo Aero, Varjo Technologies Oy) and watched a 360-degree recording of the farewell party scene while seated. They were allowed to look around freely but were not permitted to stand or walk. No instructions regarding the latter memory task were provided on this day. After one week (average = 7.0 days, SD = 0.6 days), the participants returned to the same experimental room and were informed that they would complete a recognition task while wearing the HMD. They were randomly assigned to either the first-person viewpoint condition or the bird’s-eye viewpoint condition. During the recognition task, participants viewed a 360-degree image of the farewell party room and were allowed to look around freely, but all the objects were removed. In the first-person viewpoint condition, the image was taken from the exact same viewpoint as that in the original 360-degree recording (Fig. 2 (a)), whereas in the bird’s-eye viewpoint condition, the image was taken from the opposite side of the room (Fig. 2 (b)). At the first trial, a word was presented for 3 seconds. Afterward, participants indicated whether the object indicated by the word (that is, was an old or a new item) was presented in the 360-degree clip using a controller (99HAFR002-00, HTC Corporation), with no time limit for their response. After a one-second interval, they responded to their confidence in the answer on a 5-point scale with the controller with no time limit. With a 3 second interval, the next trial started. Twenty words were presented describing the objects in the clip (old items), and the other 20 words described objects not presented (new items). The words are presented in Table 1 . The presented order was randomized. Finally, all the participants completed the VVIQ (Marks, 1973 ). After completing the questionnaire, the participants were thanked and debriefed. Table 1 List of words presented in the recognition task. Old item New item Straw Cup Umbrella Pillow Juice Fruit Stepladder Refrigerator Thread Knitting needle Stuffed animal Cart Pencil case Pen Hanger Hat Mountain (on the slideshow) River Vacuum cleaner Clock Dragonfly (on the slideshow) Spider Trash can Tablecloth Milk Egg Cardboard Book Bird (on the slideshow) Cherry blossom Racket Smartphone Pizza Paper Tissue Flat-screen TV Receipt Banknote Microwave Light stand Results VVIQ score The average VVIQ score was 42.8 ( SD = 7.3). Participants were divided into low- and high-score groups on the basis of the average score. In all, 21 participants were classified into the low-score group (average = 37.3, SD = 4.5), and 23 participants were classified into the high-score group (average = 48.5, SD = 4.9). In the original VVIQ, higher scores indicate lower imagery vividness. To enhance comprehensibility, we refer to the low-score group as the high-vividness group and the high-score group as the low-vividness group. In the high-vividness group, 12 participants were in the identical-viewpoint condition, and 9 participants were in the different-viewpoint condition. In the low-vividness group, 10 participants were in the identical-viewpoint condition, and 13 participants were in the different-viewpoint condition. Probability of hit response The probability of hit response, in which participants make “old” response for old item, was calculated for each participant as the number of old items were registered as old ones, divided by the number of old items (20 items). For the high-vividness group, the average probabilities of hit response were 0.646 ( SD = 0.043) for the first-person viewpoint condition and 0.539 ( SD = 0.021) for the bird’s-eye viewpoint conditions. For the low-vividness condition, the average probabilities of hit response were 0.555 ( SD = 0.033) for the first-person viewpoint condition and 0.654 ( SD = 0.030) for the bird’s-eye viewpoint condition. An analysis of variance (2×2) was conducted with vividness and viewpoint as the between-subjects factors. Neither the main factors of vividness nor the viewpoint were found ( F (1,40) = 0.096, p = 0.759, and η 2 = 0.002; F (1,40) = 0.011, p = 0.912, and η 2 = 0.000, respectively). The interaction was significant ( F (1,40) = 6.956, p = 0.012, and η 2 = 0.148). However, there was no significant difference between the two conditions, i.e., first-person perspective and the bird’s-eye viewpoint, for the high- and low-vividness groups ( p = 0.065 and η 2 = 0.076; p = 0.074 and η 2 = 0.072, respectively). Probability of false response The probability of false response was calculated for each participant as the number of new items that were registered as old items, divided by the number of new items (20 items). The average probability of false response for each condition is presented in Fig. 3 . For the high-vividness group, the average probability of false response was 0.500 ( SD = 0.079) for the first-person viewpoint condition, whereas the average was 0.394 ( SD = 0.126) for the bird’s-eye viewpoint condition. For the low-vividness condition, the average probability of false response was 0.420 ( SD = 0.119) for the first-person viewpoint condition, whereas the average was 0.539 ( SD = 0.102) for the bird’s-eye viewpoint condition. An analysis of variance (2×2) was conducted with vividness and viewpoint as the between-subjects factors. Neither the main factors of vividness nor the viewpoint were found ( F (1,40) = 0.894, p = 0.350, and η 2 = 0.017; F (1,40) = 0.36, p = 0.850, and η 2 = 0.001, respectively). The interaction was significant ( F (1,40) = 10.942, p = 0.002, and η 2 = 0.211). For the high-vividness group, the average probability of false response in the first-person viewpoint condition was greater than that in the bird’s-eye viewpoint condition ( p = 0.037 and η 2 = 0.089). In contrast, the average probability of false response in the bird’s-eye viewpoint condition was greater than that in the first-person viewpoint condition for the low-vividness condition ( p = 0.015 and η 2 = 0.124). Confidence rating The average rating of confidence for false memory was calculated for each condition. For the high-vividness group, the average rating was 3.32 ( SD = 0.14) in the first-person viewpoint condition and 3.58 ( SD = 0.18) in the bird’s-eye viewpoint condition. For the low-vividness group, the average rating was 3.25 ( SD = 0.15) in the first-person viewpoint condition and 3.13 ( SD = 0.18) in the bird’s-eye viewpoint condition. An analysis of variance (2×2) was conducted with vividness and viewpoint as the between-subjects factors. Neither the main factors of vividness nor the viewpoints were found ( F (1,40) = 2.50, p = 0.120, and η 2 = 0.006; F (1,40) = 0.22, p = 0.650, and η 2 = 0.001, respectively). The interaction was also not significant ( F (1,40) = 1.370, p = 0.250, and η 2 = 0.030). Signal detection analysis The sensitivity ( d’ ) and response bias ( C ) were calculated on the basis of signal detection theory (Hautus, Macmillan, & Creelman, 2021 ) using the following formulas: d’ = z ( H ) – z ( F ) (1) C = \(\:\frac{z\left(H\right)\:+\:z\left(F\right)}{2}\) (2) The z transformation converts a hit rate or a false-alarm rate to a z score. (H) is a hit rate, that is the proportion of responses that old items are old. (F) is the false-alarm rate, which is the proportion of responses that new items are old. d’ reflects how a participant distinguishes old items from new items, with larger values indicating better discrimination. C reflects how often a participant makes the response that an object is old, known as the judgment process. Positive values indicate a conservative bias (a tendency to respond “new”), whereas negative values indicate a liberal bias (a tendency to respond “old”). For the high-vividness group, the average d’ was 0.421 ( SD = 0.417) for the first-person viewpoint condition and 0.388 ( SD = 0.465) for the third-person viewpoint condition. For the low-vividness group, the average d’ was 0.356 ( SD = 0.480) for the first-person viewpoint condition and 0.312 ( SD = 0.312) for the third-person viewpoint condition. An analysis of variance (2×2) was conducted with vividness and viewpoint as the between-subjects factors. Neither the main factors of vividness nor the viewpoint were found ( F (1,40) = 0.310, p = 0.581, and η 2 = 0.008; F (1,40) = 0.093, p = 0.762, and η 2 = 0.002, respectively). Additionally, there was no significant interaction ( F (1,40) = 0.002, p = 0.967, and η 2 = 0.000). For the high-vividness group, the average C was − 0.210 ( SD = 0.305) for the first-person viewpoint condition and 0.090 ( SD = 0.262) for the bird’s-eye viewpoint condition. For the low-vividness group, the average C was 0.035 ( SD = 0.201) for the first-person viewpoint condition and − 0.257 ( SD = 0.255) for the bird’s-eye viewpoint condition (Fig. 4 ). An analysis of variance (2×2) was conducted with vividness and viewpoint as the between-subjects factors. Neither the main factors of vividness nor the viewpoint were found ( F (1,40) = 0.412, p = 0.525, and η 2 = 0.008; F (1,40) = 0.002, p = 0.961, and η 2 = 0.000, respectively). There is a significant interaction ( F (1,40) = 13.931, p = 0.001, and η 2 = 0.256). For the high-vividness group, the average in the first-person viewpoint condition was lower than that in the bird’s-eye viewpoint condition, whereas the average in the first-person viewpoint condition was higher than that in the bird’s-eye viewpoint condition for the low-vividness group ( F (1,40) = 6.827, p = 0.013, and η 2 = 0.126; F (1,40) = 7.120, p = 0.011, and η 2 = 0.131, respectively). Discussion The present study investigated how the physical viewpoint influences false recognition and how these effects are modulated by individual differences in visual imagery vividness. A significant interaction between viewpoint and VVIQ scores was observed, especially in false response. However, contrary to expectations, this interaction was not reflected in sensitivity ( d’ ), but, rather, it emerged in response criterion ( C ), indicating that viewpoint manipulations biased participants’ tendency to judge items as “old,” rather than their ability to discriminate old from new items. Regarding the probability of false responses, for individuals with high imagery vividness, false recognition was more likely when retrieval occurred from the first-person viewpoint than from the bird’s-eye viewpoint, contrary to our prediction that false recognition would be lower for the first-person viewpoint. In contrast, the low-vividness group exhibited the opposite pattern, with increased false recognition under the bird’s-eye viewpoint condition. These results suggest that viewpoint reinstatement does not uniformly enhance or impair memory accuracy; instead, its effects depend critically on the representational format relied upon during retrieval. The lack of interaction in d’ suggests that the ability to discriminate old items from new items was not affected by viewpoint or imagery vividness. Rather, the observed interaction in C indicates that viewpoint manipulations altered participants’ decision thresholds, biasing high-vividness participants towards “old” responses when the retrieval viewpoint matched encoding. This pattern aligns with findings that imagery can increase a liberal detection criterion, thereby elevating old judgments without improving discriminability (Dijkstra, Zeidman, Ondobaka, van Gerven, & Friston, 2017 ). From a theoretical perspective, fuzzy-trace theory (Brainerd & Reyna, 2002 ) provides a useful framework to interpret these results. Memory judgments can be based on both verbatim representations, which preserve perceptual details, and gist representations, which capture the general meaning of an event. High-vividness individuals may generate more potent internal visual representations during retrieval, consistent with stronger top-down modulation of early visual areas observed during imagery (Dijkstra et al., 2017 ). When retrieval occurs from a viewpoint congruent with the original camera location, these internally generated perceptual traces may be fluently processed, accordingly, enhancing the subjective familiarity of both old and perceptually similar novel items (Kleider & Goldinger, 2004 ; Miyoshi & Ashida, 2016 ; Westerman, 2008 ) and thereby promoting false recognition. Conversely, viewpoint changes may disrupt access to these detailed representations, reducing criterion bias for high-vividness participants. For low-vividness participants, criterion shifted in the opposite direction, leading to increased “old” responses under the bird’s-eye condition. This shift may reflect difficulty in accessing detailed perceptual traces when the retrieval viewpoint differed from the original encoding location, potentially increasing reliance on more abstract or gist-based information. Notably, viewpoint and imagery vividness did not influence confidence ratings. This dissociation suggests that retrieval biases induced by viewpoint reinstatement affect judgment processes rather than metacognitive awareness of memory accuracy. Such findings underscore the importance of examining both accuracy and decision processes when investigating the cognitive consequences of viewpoint manipulations. More broadly, these results highlight the significance of individual differences in visual imagery for understanding immersive technologies that shape memory distortions, such as head-mounted displays. While previous research has explored the use of virtual reality to support eyewitness recall (Nyman et al., 2020 ), individual differences have rarely been incorporated. Our findings indicate that accounting for imagery vividness is crucial for predicting when viewpoint manipulations may bias memory judgments, which has implications for both applied settings and basic research on memory reconstruction. Several limitations, however, should be acknowledged. The use of a single neutral scene limits the generalizability of the results to emotionally arousing or complex real-world events. For example, it has been argued that the effectiveness of eyewitness testimony depends on the level of threat present in the crime scene (Marr et al., 2020; for review). Furthermore, the present results may reflect intrinsic characteristics of the bird’s-eye view itself, such as increased psychological distance or reduced self-referential processing, rather than the congruency between encoding and retrieval viewpoints (Liberman Trope, & Stephan, 2007), although this account does not fully explain the current results. To assess this possibility, future research should systematically manipulate both encoding and retrieval viewpoints and examine their interaction. This would clarify whether the observed effects are driven by viewpoint congruency (i.e., reinstatement) or by the functional characteristics of specific perspectives. However, such manipulations are not straightforward, particularly for third-person perspectives as mentioned below, and we therefore used a bird’s-eye view as a more controllable condition. In addition, although we interpreted viewpoint manipulations as a form of contextual change, it remains unclear whether they engage the same mechanisms as traditional context-dependent memory manipulations. Future research should examine a broader range of stimuli and systematically compare viewpoint-based reinstatement with other forms of contextual overlap. In summary, the present study demonstrates that viewpoint manipulation in immersive environments can bias recognition judgments in a manner dependent on individual differences in imagery vividness. These effects appear to operate primarily through shifts in response criteria rather than through changes in discriminability. Such insights advance our understanding of how perceptual and individual-differential factors jointly shape memory distortion. Declarations Author contributions KH: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RH: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. SF: Data curation, Writing – review & editing. SN: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Data availability The data reported in this article are available on the Open Science Framework and can be downloaded from https://osf.io/2naq5/. Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Funding This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 25K15299. Acknowledgments This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 25K15299. References Abadie, M. & Camos, V. False memory at short and long term. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 148 (8), 1312 (2019). Berger, G. H. & Gaunitz, S. C. Self-rated imagery and encoding strategies in visual memory. Br. J. Psychol. 70 (1), 21–24 (1979). Brainerd, C. J. & Reyna, V. F. Fuzzy-trace theory and false memory. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 11 (5), 164–169 (2002). Dijkstra, N., Zeidman, P., Ondobaka, S., van Gerven, M. A. & Friston, K. Distinct top-down and bottom-up brain connectivity during visual perception and imagery. Sci. Rep. 7 (1), 5677 (2017). Diwadkar, V. A. & McNamara, T. P. Viewpoint dependence in scene recognition. Psychol. Sci. 8 (4), 302–307 (1997). Garsoffky, B., Schwan, S. & Hesse, F. W. Viewpoint dependency in the recognition of dynamic scenes. J. Experimental Psychology: Learn. Memory Cognition . 28 (6), 1035 (2002). Hautus, M. J., Macmillan, N. A. & Creelman, C. D. Detection theory: A user's guide (Routledge, 2021). Kleider, H. M. & Goldinger, S. D. Illusions of face memory: Clarity breeds familiarity. J. Mem. Lang. 50 (2), 196–211 (2004). Liberman, N., Trope, Y. & Stephan, E. Psychological distance. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, 2(2), 353–383. (2007). Loftus, E. F. & Pickrell, J. E. The formation of false memories. Psychiatric annals . 25 (12), 720–725 (1995). Marks, D. F. Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. Br. J. Psychol. 64 , 17–24 (1973). Marr, C., Sauerland, M., Otgaar, H., Quaedflieg, C. W. & Hope, L. The effects of acute stress on eyewitness memory: An integrative review for eyewitness researchers. Memory 29 (8), 1091–1100 (2021). Miyoshi, K. & Ashida, H. Attentional cueing induces false memory. Conscious. Cogn. 43 , 66–74 (2016). Marcotti, P. & St. Jacques, P. L. Third-person perspectives in photographs influence visual and spatial perspectives during subsequent memory retrieval. J. Cogn. Psychol. 34 (1), 45–63 (2022). Marks, D. F. Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. Br. J. Psychol. 64 (1), 17–24 (1973). McKelvie, S. J. & Demers, E. G. Individual differences in reported visual imagery and memory performance. Br. J. Psychol. 70 (1), 51–57 (1979). Nguyen, T. B., Pezdek, K. & Wixted, J. T. Evidence for a confidence–accuracy relationship in memory for same-and cross-race faces. Q. J. Experimental Psychol. 70 (12), 2518–2534 (2017). Nyman, T. J., Antfolk, J., Lampinen, J. M., Korkman, J. & Santtila, P. Eyewitness identifications after witnessing threatening and non-threatening scenes in 360-degree virtual reality (or 2D) from first and third person perspectives. Plos one , 15 (9), e0238292. (2020). Robinson, J. A. & Swanson, K. L. Field and observer modes of remembering. Memory 1 (3), 169–184 (1993). Schacter, D. L., Norman, K. A. & Koutstaal, W. The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory. False-memory creation Child. adults , 136–175. (2000). Tulving, E. & Thomson, D. M. Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychol. Rev. 80 (5), 352 (1973). Westfall, J. PANGEA: Poweranalysisforgeneral Anova designs. (2016). Retrieved from http://jakewestfall.org/publications/pangea.pdf Westerman, D. L. Relative fluency and illusions of recognition memory. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 15 (6), 1196–1200 (2008). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 05 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 27 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 26 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 23 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 23 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Apr, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 08 Apr, 2026 Editor invited by journal 06 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 31 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 31 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 30 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9263360","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":623918678,"identity":"dce0f5c2-0a36-409e-9117-5b5baf340e62","order_by":0,"name":"Kyoko Hine","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Toyohashi University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kyoko","middleName":"","lastName":"Hine","suffix":""},{"id":623918679,"identity":"19d9f1dd-0a89-4648-8b7e-4d3e66734cdf","order_by":1,"name":"Ryunosuke Hayashida","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Toyohashi University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ryunosuke","middleName":"","lastName":"Hayashida","suffix":""},{"id":623918680,"identity":"a2f2c816-2e4c-468e-aeb7-bebc53098925","order_by":2,"name":"Shuma Fujikawa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Toyohashi University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shuma","middleName":"","lastName":"Fujikawa","suffix":""},{"id":623918681,"identity":"d40ff204-aed8-4e45-933a-c3bee301fa55","order_by":3,"name":"Shigeki Nakauchi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Toyohashi University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shigeki","middleName":"","lastName":"Nakauchi","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-30 07:08:26","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9263360/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9263360/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":107484406,"identity":"30d58381-357e-4cce-a694-a8e45600a272","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-22 02:31:54","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":463939,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eA 360° photo of the movie presented during the initial viewing on day 1.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9263360/v1/4d7ed5e4dd5bbed74476f605.png"},{"id":107484411,"identity":"040cfc7a-d5ca-4ef0-924b-2c4d349b2b15","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-22 02:31:55","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":575254,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePerspectives of the movie presented in the recognition task in the (a) first-person viewpoint condition and (b) bird’s-eye viewpoint condition.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9263360/v1/5fc624d74dab565974a0f555.png"},{"id":107484391,"identity":"21e75560-266f-4ca6-ad4b-70cd4fb347bf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-22 02:31:50","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":6923,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAverage probability of false response. The error bars indicate standard errors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9263360/v1/b12cb58f2108c36dbc581f55.png"},{"id":107484625,"identity":"5b7f60ad-e23c-4f3d-b4af-6f5f810d7860","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-22 02:32:33","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":4549,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe average is shown in terms of \u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e. The error bar indicates the standard error.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9263360/v1/819d0272f54988b1b78a38f1.png"},{"id":107486924,"identity":"3de47867-33aa-40b8-9104-4fa574378a01","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-22 02:39:18","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1534048,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9263360/v1/976ed0f9-590a-4e27-a5b0-864efc323573.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Effects of Physical Viewpoint and Individual Differences in Imagery Vividness on False Recognition","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eHuman memory is not an accurate record of past experiences, but rather, it is a reconstructive process that is passed through both encoding and retrieval phases. As a consequence, retrieved contents can lead not only to accurate recollections but also to systematic distortions, including false memories, i.e., instances in which individuals remember events that did not occur (Loftus \u0026amp; Pickrell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Schacter, Norman, \u0026amp; Koutstaal, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). To understand how memory is reconstructed, it is important to clarify the conditions under which false memories arise, particularly when retrieval contexts differ from the original encoding context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne factor known to influence memory retrieval is the reinstatement of contextual information present at encoding. According to principles of context-dependent memory, overlap between encoding and retrieval conditions generally facilitates memory performance (Tulving \u0026amp; Thomson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1973\u003c/span\u003e). Visual context, including the observer\u0026rsquo;s physical viewpoint, is one of the candidates for such contextual information. Changes in viewpoint between encoding and retrieval can alter the availability and/or accessibility of perceptual details, potentially influencing false recognitions. Previous research has revealed that viewpoint manipulations can affect memory performance (Diwadkar \u0026amp; McNamara, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Garsoffky, Schwan, \u0026amp; Hesse, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). For example, Macrotti and Jacques (2022) demonstrated that retrieved contents recalled from a first-person viewpoint that matched the encoding viewpoint differed from those recalled from a third-person perspective. Still, it is unclear how viewpoint, whether first person or third person, affects false recognition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, the influence of viewpoint effect on memory is not identical across individuals. One key source of individual variability lies in visual imagery ability. Visual imagery vividness reflects the extent to which individuals can generate detailed and perceptually rich mental images and is commonly assessed using the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ; Marks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1973\u003c/span\u003e). Individuals with high imagery vividness tend to rely more strongly on imagery-based representations during encoding and retrieval, whereas those with lower imagery vividness may depend more on abstract or verbal representations (Berger \u0026amp; Gaunitz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e; McKelvie \u0026amp; Demers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e). Such differences suggest that the effects of viewpoint reinstatement on memory may be moderated by imagery vividness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a theoretical perspective, fuzzy-trace theory provides beneficial frameworks for understanding how viewpoint and imagery vividness may interact to influence memory performance. Fuzzy-trace theory proposes that memory encoding produces both verbatim traces, which preserve precise perceptual details, and gist traces, which capture the general meaning of an event (Brainerd \u0026amp; Reyna, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). False memories are more likely when retrieval relies on gist-based representations, particularly after delays during which verbatim traces have weakened (Aadie \u0026amp; Camos, 2018). Previous research suggests that individuals with high imagery vividness rely more heavily on imagery-based representations during encoding (Berger \u0026amp; Gaunitz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e; McKelvie \u0026amp; Demers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e). Accordingly, under conditions that support perceptual reinstatement\u0026mdash;such as retrieval from an identical physical viewpoint\u0026mdash;these individuals may be more likely to access perceptually detailed, verbatim-like information. In contrast, changes in viewpoint may disrupt access to such detailed representations, increasing reliance on gist-based information and thereby elevating false recognition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on these theoretical considerations, the present study examined how physical viewpoint at retrieval influenced recognition performance and how this effect was modulated by individual differences in imagery vividness. To systematically control visual viewpoint, we employed a head-mounted display (HMD) that allowed participants to experience a neutral event from a specific physical perspective. After a one-week delay, participants completed a recognition task while viewing the scene from either the same physical viewpoint as during the encoding or from a third-person viewpoint. In the current study, a bird-eye viewpoint was employed as the third-person perspective. Presenting another person\u0026rsquo;s viewpoint as the third person would require participants to imagine being that person, introducing variability and making it more difficult to control object visibility. The bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye view allowed consistent visual access for all participants. Imagery vividness was assessed using VVIQ. We hypothesized that viewpoint reinstatement would differentially affect false recognition as a function of imagery vividness. Specifically, individuals with high imagery vividness were expected to exhibit higher sensitivity in the first-person viewpoint than in the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint, whereas individuals with low imagery vividness were not expected to reveal such a viewpoint effect, reflecting differential reliance on imagery-based versus gist-based memory representations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Experiment","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMethod\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe number of participants was calculated using PANGEA v0.2 (Westfall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) for an effect size (\u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e) of 0.45 and a power of 0.80. PANGEA suggested 44 participants. On the basis of these calculations, 44 students (six females and 38 males; \u003cem\u003emean age\u003c/em\u003e 21.0 years; \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.4 years) participated in the current experiment. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. The experimental procedures were approved by the Committee for Human Research at Toyohashi University of Technology (approval number: 2022-20). All the experiments were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStimuli\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe filmed the preparations for a farewell party scene using a Ricoh Theta V 360-degree camera (Insta360 X3, Shenzhen Arashi Vision Co., Ltd.). The duration of the scene was seven minutes (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The total number of people presented in the scene was six. These people took turns entering and leaving the room for the preparation with various objects. The 360-degree camera was positioned 70 cm above the floor along the wall during the recording. Additionally, we took two pictures that presented the same room, excluding objects (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMaterials and procedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis experiment was conducted over two separate days. On the first day, the participants wore an HMD (Varjo Aero, Varjo Technologies Oy) and watched a 360-degree recording of the farewell party scene while seated. They were allowed to look around freely but were not permitted to stand or walk. No instructions regarding the latter memory task were provided on this day.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter one week (average\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.0 days, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.6 days), the participants returned to the same experimental room and were informed that they would complete a recognition task while wearing the HMD. They were randomly assigned to either the first-person viewpoint condition or the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint condition. During the recognition task, participants viewed a 360-degree image of the farewell party room and were allowed to look around freely, but all the objects were removed. In the first-person viewpoint condition, the image was taken from the exact same viewpoint as that in the original 360-degree recording (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e(a)), whereas in the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint condition, the image was taken from the opposite side of the room (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e(b)). At the first trial, a word was presented for 3 seconds. Afterward, participants indicated whether the object indicated by the word (that is, was an old or a new item) was presented in the 360-degree clip using a controller (99HAFR002-00, HTC Corporation), with no time limit for their response. After a one-second interval, they responded to their confidence in the answer on a 5-point scale with the controller with no time limit. With a 3 second interval, the next trial started. Twenty words were presented describing the objects in the clip (old items), and the other 20 words described objects not presented (new items). The words are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The presented order was randomized. Finally, all the participants completed the VVIQ (Marks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1973\u003c/span\u003e). After completing the questionnaire, the participants were thanked and debriefed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eList of words presented in the recognition task.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOld item\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNew item\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStraw\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCup\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUmbrella\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePillow\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJuice\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFruit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStepladder\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRefrigerator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThread\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKnitting needle\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStuffed animal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCart\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePencil case\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHanger\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHat\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMountain (on the slideshow)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRiver\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVacuum cleaner\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClock\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDragonfly (on the slideshow)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpider\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrash can\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTablecloth\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMilk\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEgg\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCardboard\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBook\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBird (on the slideshow)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCherry blossom\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRacket\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSmartphone\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePizza\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePaper\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTissue\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlat-screen TV\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReceipt\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBanknote\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMicrowave\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLight stand\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eVVIQ score\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe average VVIQ score was 42.8 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.3). Participants were divided into low- and high-score groups on the basis of the average score. In all, 21 participants were classified into the low-score group (average\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;37.3, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.5), and 23 participants were classified into the high-score group (average\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;48.5, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.9). In the original VVIQ, higher scores indicate lower imagery vividness. To enhance comprehensibility, we refer to the low-score group as the high-vividness group and the high-score group as the low-vividness group. In the high-vividness group, 12 participants were in the identical-viewpoint condition, and 9 participants were in the different-viewpoint condition. In the low-vividness group, 10 participants were in the identical-viewpoint condition, and 13 participants were in the different-viewpoint condition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProbability of hit response\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe probability of hit response, in which participants make \u0026ldquo;old\u0026rdquo; response for old item, was calculated for each participant as the number of old items were registered as old ones, divided by the number of old items (20 items). For the high-vividness group, the average probabilities of hit response were 0.646 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.043) for the first-person viewpoint condition and 0.539 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.021) for the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint conditions. For the low-vividness condition, the average probabilities of hit response were 0.555 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.033) for the first-person viewpoint condition and 0.654 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.030) for the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint condition. An analysis of variance (2\u0026times;2) was conducted with vividness and viewpoint as the between-subjects factors. Neither the main factors of vividness nor the viewpoint were found (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,40)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.096, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.759, and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.002; \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,40)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.011, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.912, and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.000, respectively). The interaction was significant (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,40)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.956, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.012, and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.148). However, there was no significant difference between the two conditions, i.e., first-person perspective and the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint, for the high- and low-vividness groups (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.065 and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.076; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.074 and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.072, respectively).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProbability of false response\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe probability of false response was calculated for each participant as the number of new items that were registered as old items, divided by the number of new items (20 items). The average probability of false response for each condition is presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. For the high-vividness group, the average probability of false response was 0.500 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.079) for the first-person viewpoint condition, whereas the average was 0.394 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.126) for the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint condition. For the low-vividness condition, the average probability of false response was 0.420 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.119) for the first-person viewpoint condition, whereas the average was 0.539 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.102) for the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint condition. An analysis of variance (2\u0026times;2) was conducted with vividness and viewpoint as the between-subjects factors. Neither the main factors of vividness nor the viewpoint were found (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,40)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.894, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.350, and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.017; \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,40)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.36, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.850, and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001, respectively). The interaction was significant (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,40)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.942, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.002, and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.211). For the high-vividness group, the average probability of false response in the first-person viewpoint condition was greater than that in the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint condition (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.037 and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.089). In contrast, the average probability of false response in the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint condition was greater than that in the first-person viewpoint condition for the low-vividness condition (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.015 and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.124).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConfidence rating\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe average rating of confidence for false memory was calculated for each condition. For the high-vividness group, the average rating was 3.32 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.14) in the first-person viewpoint condition and 3.58 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.18) in the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint condition. For the low-vividness group, the average rating was 3.25 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.15) in the first-person viewpoint condition and 3.13 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.18) in the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint condition. An analysis of variance (2\u0026times;2) was conducted with vividness and viewpoint as the between-subjects factors. Neither the main factors of vividness nor the viewpoints were found (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,40)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.50, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.120, and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.006; \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,40)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.22, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.650, and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001, respectively). The interaction was also not significant (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,40)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.370, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.250, and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.030).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSignal detection analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sensitivity (\u003cem\u003ed\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e) and response bias (\u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e) were calculated on the basis of signal detection theory (Hautus, Macmillan, \u0026amp; Creelman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) using the following formulas:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003ed\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e = \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cem\u003eH\u003c/em\u003e) \u0026ndash;\u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e) (1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e = \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:\\frac{z\\left(H\\right)\\:+\\:z\\left(F\\right)}{2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e transformation converts a hit rate or a false-alarm rate to a \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e score. \u003cem\u003e(H)\u003c/em\u003e is a hit rate, that is the proportion of responses that old items are old. \u003cem\u003e(F)\u003c/em\u003e is the false-alarm rate, which is the proportion of responses that new items are old. \u003cem\u003ed\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e reflects how a participant distinguishes old items from new items, with larger values indicating better discrimination. \u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e reflects how often a participant makes the response that an object is old, known as the judgment process. Positive values indicate a conservative bias (a tendency to respond \u0026ldquo;new\u0026rdquo;), whereas negative values indicate a liberal bias (a tendency to respond \u0026ldquo;old\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the high-vividness group, the average \u003cem\u003ed\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e was 0.421 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.417) for the first-person viewpoint condition and 0.388 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.465) for the third-person viewpoint condition. For the low-vividness group, the average \u003cem\u003ed\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e was 0.356 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.480) for the first-person viewpoint condition and 0.312 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.312) for the third-person viewpoint condition. An analysis of variance (2\u0026times;2) was conducted with vividness and viewpoint as the between-subjects factors. Neither the main factors of vividness nor the viewpoint were found (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,40)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.310, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.581, and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.008; \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,40)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.093, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.762, and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.002, respectively). Additionally, there was no significant interaction (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,40)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.002, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.967, and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.000).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the high-vividness group, the average \u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e was \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.210 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.305) for the first-person viewpoint condition and 0.090 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.262) for the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint condition. For the low-vividness group, the average \u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e was 0.035 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.201) for the first-person viewpoint condition and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.257 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.255) for the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint condition (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). An analysis of variance (2\u0026times;2) was conducted with vividness and viewpoint as the between-subjects factors. Neither the main factors of vividness nor the viewpoint were found (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,40)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.412, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.525, and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.008; \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,40)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.002, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.961, and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.000, respectively). There is a significant interaction (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,40)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.931, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001, and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.256). For the high-vividness group, the average in the first-person viewpoint condition was lower than that in the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint condition, whereas the average in the first-person viewpoint condition was higher than that in the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint condition for the low-vividness group (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,40)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.827, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.013, and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.126; \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,40)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.120, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.011, and η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.131, respectively).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study investigated how the physical viewpoint influences false recognition and how these effects are modulated by individual differences in visual imagery vividness. A significant interaction between viewpoint and VVIQ scores was observed, especially in false response. However, contrary to expectations, this interaction was not reflected in sensitivity (\u003cem\u003ed\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e), but, rather, it emerged in response criterion (\u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e), indicating that viewpoint manipulations biased participants\u0026rsquo; tendency to judge items as \u0026ldquo;old,\u0026rdquo; rather than their ability to discriminate old from new items.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding the probability of false responses, for individuals with high imagery vividness, false recognition was more likely when retrieval occurred from the first-person viewpoint than from the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint, contrary to our prediction that false recognition would be lower for the first-person viewpoint. In contrast, the low-vividness group exhibited the opposite pattern, with increased false recognition under the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint condition. These results suggest that viewpoint reinstatement does not uniformly enhance or impair memory accuracy; instead, its effects depend critically on the representational format relied upon during retrieval.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe lack of interaction in \u003cem\u003ed\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e suggests that the ability to discriminate old items from new items was not affected by viewpoint or imagery vividness. Rather, the observed interaction in \u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e indicates that viewpoint manipulations altered participants\u0026rsquo; decision thresholds, biasing high-vividness participants towards \u0026ldquo;old\u0026rdquo; responses when the retrieval viewpoint matched encoding. This pattern aligns with findings that imagery can increase a liberal detection criterion, thereby elevating old judgments without improving discriminability (Dijkstra, Zeidman, Ondobaka, van Gerven, \u0026amp; Friston, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a theoretical perspective, fuzzy-trace theory (Brainerd \u0026amp; Reyna, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) provides a useful framework to interpret these results. Memory judgments can be based on both verbatim representations, which preserve perceptual details, and gist representations, which capture the general meaning of an event. High-vividness individuals may generate more potent internal visual representations during retrieval, consistent with stronger top-down modulation of early visual areas observed during imagery (Dijkstra et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). When retrieval occurs from a viewpoint congruent with the original camera location, these internally generated perceptual traces may be fluently processed, accordingly, enhancing the subjective familiarity of both old and perceptually similar novel items (Kleider \u0026amp; Goldinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Miyoshi \u0026amp; Ashida, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Westerman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) and thereby promoting false recognition. Conversely, viewpoint changes may disrupt access to these detailed representations, reducing criterion bias for high-vividness participants. For low-vividness participants, criterion shifted in the opposite direction, leading to increased \u0026ldquo;old\u0026rdquo; responses under the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye condition. This shift may reflect difficulty in accessing detailed perceptual traces when the retrieval viewpoint differed from the original encoding location, potentially increasing reliance on more abstract or gist-based information.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, viewpoint and imagery vividness did not influence confidence ratings. This dissociation suggests that retrieval biases induced by viewpoint reinstatement affect judgment processes rather than metacognitive awareness of memory accuracy. Such findings underscore the importance of examining both accuracy and decision processes when investigating the cognitive consequences of viewpoint manipulations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMore broadly, these results highlight the significance of individual differences in visual imagery for understanding immersive technologies that shape memory distortions, such as head-mounted displays. While previous research has explored the use of virtual reality to support eyewitness recall (Nyman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), individual differences have rarely been incorporated. Our findings indicate that accounting for imagery vividness is crucial for predicting when viewpoint manipulations may bias memory judgments, which has implications for both applied settings and basic research on memory reconstruction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations, however, should be acknowledged. The use of a single neutral scene limits the generalizability of the results to emotionally arousing or complex real-world events. For example, it has been argued that the effectiveness of eyewitness testimony depends on the level of threat present in the crime scene (Marr et al., 2020; for review).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the present results may reflect intrinsic characteristics of the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye view itself, such as increased psychological distance or reduced self-referential processing, rather than the congruency between encoding and retrieval viewpoints (Liberman Trope, \u0026amp; Stephan, 2007), although this account does not fully explain the current results. To assess this possibility, future research should systematically manipulate both encoding and retrieval viewpoints and examine their interaction. This would clarify whether the observed effects are driven by viewpoint congruency (i.e., reinstatement) or by the functional characteristics of specific perspectives. However, such manipulations are not straightforward, particularly for third-person perspectives as mentioned below, and we therefore used a bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye view as a more controllable condition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, although we interpreted viewpoint manipulations as a form of contextual change, it remains unclear whether they engage the same mechanisms as traditional context-dependent memory manipulations. Future research should examine a broader range of stimuli and systematically compare viewpoint-based reinstatement with other forms of contextual overlap.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, the present study demonstrates that viewpoint manipulation in immersive environments can bias recognition judgments in a manner dependent on individual differences in imagery vividness. These effects appear to operate primarily through shifts in response criteria rather than through changes in discriminability. Such insights advance our understanding of how perceptual and individual-differential factors jointly shape memory distortion.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKH: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing \u0026ndash; original draft, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing. RH: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing. SF: Data curation, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing. SN: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data reported in this article are available on the Open Science Framework and can be downloaded from https://osf.io/2naq5/.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 25K15299.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 25K15299.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbadie, M. \u0026amp; Camos, V. False memory at short and long term. \u003cem\u003eJ. Exp. Psychol. Gen.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e148\u003c/b\u003e (8), 1312 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerger, G. H. \u0026amp; Gaunitz, S. C. Self-rated imagery and encoding strategies in visual memory. \u003cem\u003eBr. J. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e70\u003c/b\u003e (1), 21\u0026ndash;24 (1979).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrainerd, C. J. \u0026amp; Reyna, V. F. Fuzzy-trace theory and false memory. \u003cem\u003eCurr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e11\u003c/b\u003e (5), 164\u0026ndash;169 (2002).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDijkstra, N., Zeidman, P., Ondobaka, S., van Gerven, M. A. \u0026amp; Friston, K. Distinct top-down and bottom-up brain connectivity during visual perception and imagery. \u003cem\u003eSci. Rep.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e7\u003c/b\u003e (1), 5677 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiwadkar, V. A. \u0026amp; McNamara, T. P. Viewpoint dependence in scene recognition. \u003cem\u003ePsychol. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e8\u003c/b\u003e (4), 302\u0026ndash;307 (1997).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarsoffky, B., Schwan, S. \u0026amp; Hesse, F. W. Viewpoint dependency in the recognition of dynamic scenes. \u003cem\u003eJ. Experimental Psychology: Learn. Memory Cognition\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e28\u003c/b\u003e (6), 1035 (2002).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHautus, M. J., Macmillan, N. A. \u0026amp; Creelman, C. D. \u003cem\u003eDetection theory: A user's guide\u003c/em\u003e (Routledge, 2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKleider, H. M. \u0026amp; Goldinger, S. D. Illusions of face memory: Clarity breeds familiarity. \u003cem\u003eJ. Mem. Lang.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e50\u003c/b\u003e (2), 196\u0026ndash;211 (2004).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiberman, N., Trope, Y. \u0026amp; Stephan, E. Psychological distance. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, 2(2), 353\u0026ndash;383. (2007).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLoftus, E. F. \u0026amp; Pickrell, J. E. The formation of false memories. \u003cem\u003ePsychiatric annals\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e25\u003c/b\u003e (12), 720\u0026ndash;725 (1995).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarks, D. F. Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. \u003cem\u003eBr. J. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e64\u003c/b\u003e, 17\u0026ndash;24 (1973).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarr, C., Sauerland, M., Otgaar, H., Quaedflieg, C. W. \u0026amp; Hope, L. The effects of acute stress on eyewitness memory: An integrative review for eyewitness researchers. \u003cem\u003eMemory\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e29\u003c/b\u003e (8), 1091\u0026ndash;1100 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiyoshi, K. \u0026amp; Ashida, H. Attentional cueing induces false memory. \u003cem\u003eConscious. Cogn.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e43\u003c/b\u003e, 66\u0026ndash;74 (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarcotti, P. \u0026amp; St. Jacques, P. L. Third-person perspectives in photographs influence visual and spatial perspectives during subsequent memory retrieval. \u003cem\u003eJ. Cogn. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e34\u003c/b\u003e (1), 45\u0026ndash;63 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarks, D. F. Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. \u003cem\u003eBr. J. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e64\u003c/b\u003e (1), 17\u0026ndash;24 (1973).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcKelvie, S. J. \u0026amp; Demers, E. G. Individual differences in reported visual imagery and memory performance. \u003cem\u003eBr. J. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e70\u003c/b\u003e (1), 51\u0026ndash;57 (1979).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNguyen, T. B., Pezdek, K. \u0026amp; Wixted, J. T. Evidence for a confidence\u0026ndash;accuracy relationship in memory for same-and cross-race faces. \u003cem\u003eQ. J. Experimental Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e70\u003c/b\u003e (12), 2518\u0026ndash;2534 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNyman, T. J., Antfolk, J., Lampinen, J. M., Korkman, J. \u0026amp; Santtila, P. Eyewitness identifications after witnessing threatening and non-threatening scenes in 360-degree virtual reality (or 2D) from first and third person perspectives. \u003cem\u003ePlos one\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cb\u003e15\u003c/b\u003e(9), e0238292. (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRobinson, J. A. \u0026amp; Swanson, K. L. Field and observer modes of remembering. \u003cem\u003eMemory\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e1\u003c/b\u003e (3), 169\u0026ndash;184 (1993).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchacter, D. L., Norman, K. A. \u0026amp; Koutstaal, W. The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory. \u003cem\u003eFalse-memory creation Child. adults\u003c/em\u003e, 136\u0026ndash;175. (2000).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTulving, E. \u0026amp; Thomson, D. M. Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. \u003cem\u003ePsychol. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e80\u003c/b\u003e (5), 352 (1973).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWestfall, J. PANGEA: Poweranalysisforgeneral Anova designs. (2016). Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://jakewestfall.org/publications/pangea.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://jakewestfall.org/publications/pangea.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWesterman, D. L. Relative fluency and illusions of recognition memory. \u003cem\u003ePsychon. Bull. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e15\u003c/b\u003e (6), 1196\u0026ndash;1200 (2008).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"recognition, physical viewpoint, vividness of visual imagery, head-mounted display","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9263360/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9263360/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eHuman memory, which is reconstructive rather than a perfect record of past experiences, can lead to not only true but also false recognition. In this study, we examined how retrieval viewpoint interacts with individual differences in visual imagery to influence memory distortion. Participants viewed a 360\u0026deg; recording of a neutral scene via a head-mounted display and, after a one-week delay, performed a recognition task from either an original first-person perspective or a bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint. Results revealed an interaction between viewpoint and imagery vividness: individuals with high-imagery vividness exhibited increased false recognition from the first-person viewpoint, whereas individuals with low-imagery vividness were more prone to experience increased false recognition under the bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye viewpoint. Analyses of hit and false-alarm rates indicated that these effects were driven by shifts in response criteria rather than discrimination ability, suggesting that viewpoint and imagery bias memory judgments without changing sensitivity. These findings highlight that memory distortions depend on both external perspective and internal cognitive style, thereby emphasizing the role of individual differences in mnemonic processes.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Effects of Physical Viewpoint and Individual Differences in Imagery Vividness on False Recognition","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-19 08:10:55","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9263360/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-05-05T05:03:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-27T11:13:30+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-27T03:07:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-23T10:16:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-23T08:18:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"144906463418058798418222558406558669239","date":"2026-04-22T10:17:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"331163474905714434816719306923438873572","date":"2026-04-22T08:36:22+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"124579231649942547337082950796275623902","date":"2026-04-10T03:32:41+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"312326995167462925443699670782672210123","date":"2026-04-09T23:48:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-09T01:20:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-06T12:45:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-01T01:25:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-04-01T01:24:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Scientific Reports","date":"2026-03-30T06:51:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9746f4ab-ae18-44fc-b498-01b9dad9fb7a","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 19th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-05-05T05:03:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"in-revision","subjectAreas":[{"id":66401436,"name":"Biological sciences/Neuroscience"},{"id":66401437,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":66401438,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-05T05:08:55+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-19 08:10:55","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9263360","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9263360","identity":"rs-9263360","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}