Point-and-Shoot Memories: The Influence of Taking Photos on Memory for a Museum Tour

Abstract

Two studies examined whether photographing objects impacts what is remembered about them. Participants were led on a guided tour of an art museum and were directed to observe some objects and to photograph others. Results showed a photo-taking-impairment effect: If participants took a photo of each object as a whole, they remembered fewer objects and remembered fewer details about the objects and the objects' locations in the museum than if they instead only observed the objects and did not photograph them. However, when participants zoomed in to photograph a specific part of the object, their subsequent recognition and detail memory was not impaired, and, in fact, memory for features that were not zoomed in on was just as strong as memory for features that were zoomed in on. This finding highlights key differences between people's memory and the camera's "memory" and suggests that the additional attentional and cognitive processes engaged by this focused activity can eliminate the photo-taking-impairment effect.

Full text

Psychological Science
2014, Vol. 25(2) 396 –402
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0956797613504438
pss.sagepub.com
Research Article
Taking a photograph is as easy as pointing and shooting,
providing an external memory of one’s experiences. It is
estimated that people took more than 3 billion photos in
2012 and that 300 million photos are uploaded to
Facebook each day (Schwartz, 2013). To what extent
does capturing one’s life events with a camera shape
what one subsequently remembers? Surprisingly little is
known about this. Several studies have examined the
extent to which looking at and reviewing photos influ-
ences memory and have found that photos act as valu-
able retrieval cues that help people reactivate and
remember their experiences (Deocampo & Hudson,
2003; Hudson & Fivush, 1991; Koutstaal, Schacter,
Johnson, Angell, & Gross, 1998; Koutstaal, Schacter,
Johnson, & Galluccio, 1999; Schacter, Koutstaal, Johnson,
Gross, & Angell, 1997; St. Jacques & Schacter, 2013).
Some researchers have employed passive camera sys-
tems that people wear and that take photos during the
course of the day, and have found that many months
later, people are quite good at discriminating photos of
their own experiences from photos of unrelated events
that other people experienced (Milton et al., 2011).
Studies using these passive camera “life-logging” systems
have focused on the effects of reviewing the day’s photos
on people’s memory retention, and it has been found that
such photo review benefits memory and cognitive per-
formance in patients with amnesia and other severe
memory impairments (Berry et al., 2007; Loveday &
Conway, 2011) as well as people without any neurologi-
cal difficulties (Hodges, Berry, & Wood, 2011).
In studies in which people actively and deliberately
took photographs of themselves and their life experi-
ences (e.g., activities during their summer vacation;
places they visited), the focus has primarily been on
understanding the organization and structure of events
and time periods in autobiographical memories (Burt,
Kemp, & Conway, 2003, 2008; Kemp, Burt, & Malinen,
2009; St. Jacques, Rubin, LaBar, & Cabeza, 2008). Thus,
research to date has not yet addressed the impact of the
504438PSSXXX10.1177/0956797613504438HenkelPhotos and Memory
research-article2013
Corresponding Author:
Linda A. Henkel, Department of Psychology, Fairfield University, N.
Benson Rd., Fairfield, CT 06824
E-mail: lhenkel@fairfield.edu
Point-and-Shoot Memories: The Influence
of Taking Photos on Memory for
a Museum Tour
Linda A. Henkel
Fairfield University
Abstract
Two studies examined whether photographing objects impacts what is remembered about them. Participants were
led on a guided tour of an art museum and were directed to observe some objects and to photograph others. Results
showed a photo-taking-impairment effect: If participants took a photo of each object as a whole, they remembered
fewer objects and remembered fewer details about the objects and the objects’ locations in the museum than if they
instead only observed the objects and did not photograph them. However, when participants zoomed in to photograph
a specific part of the object, their subsequent recognition and detail memory was not impaired, and, in fact, memory
for features that were not zoomed in on was just as strong as memory for features that were zoomed in on. This finding
highlights key differences between people’s memory and the camera’s “memory” and suggests that the additional
attentional and cognitive processes engaged by this focused activity can eliminate the photo-taking-impairment effect.
Keywords
photographs, memory, autobiographical memory, long-term memory, digital cameras
Received 4/17/13; Revision accepted 8/16/13
at FAIRFIELD UNIV LIBRARY on December 26, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Photos and Memory 397
act of taking a photo on one’s subsequent memory. In the
present study, participants were led on a guided tour of
an art museum, the Bellarmine Museum of Art, during
which they were asked to view particular objects of art
and were directed to photograph some of the objects. In
Experiment 1, participants’ memory for objects they pho-
tographed was compared with their memory for objects
they viewed but did not photograph, and in Experiment
2, participants’ memory for objects they photographed
as a whole, photographed by zooming in on one part
of the object, or viewed but did not photograph was
compared.
People report that they take photographs and record
videos as a way to remember events in their lives (Chalfen,
1998; Harrison, 2002). On the one hand, photographing
objects could have positive effects on memory because it
may focus one’s attention and, hence, increase the mem-
orability of the scene. In addition, photographing an
object is a more active process than observing it, and
research on the enactment effect has shown that people
better remember actions they have performed than
actions they have only thought about or observed
(Roediger & Zaromb, 2010). On the other hand, taking
photos may have a detrimental impact on memory.
Photographing a scene may divide one’s attention, simi-
lar to when people multitask by using cell phones while
driving or walking (Hyman, Boss, Wise, McKenzie, &
Caggiano, 2010) or laptop computers while learning
material (Fried, 2008; Hembrooke & Gay, 2003; Smith,
Isaak, Senette, & Abadie, 2011). People may also pay less
attention to a scene if they take photos, counting on the
external device of the camera to “remember” for them, as
suggested by research showing that people were less
likely to remember information if they expected to have
future access to it (e.g., on an external storage device,
such as a computer, or via the Internet; Sparrow, Liu, &
Wegner, 2011). In this regard, taking a photo could serve
as a cue to “dismiss and forget,” as in directed-forgetting
studies in which people’s memory for items they were
told to forget was typically worse than for items they
were told to remember (Golding & MacLeod, 1998).
Experiment 1
Method
Participants were 28 undergraduates, 1 of whom failed to
return for the second session. Of the remaining 27 par-
ticipants (6 men, 21 women; mean age = 19.41 years,
SD = 1.34, range = 18–23), 33% had never been to the
museum before, and the remainder reported not having
been there in the past month or longer. Individuals par-
ticipated in return for course credit or extra credit.
Participants were told that they would be led on a tour of
a museum and that during the tour they would be asked
to photograph some objects and to observe other objects
without taking a photo; they were asked to pay attention
to the objects and told that they would later be asked
about what the works of art looked like. They were given
time to practice using the digital camera, which had a
screen viewer that allowed them to see the object the
camera was aimed at and the photo that was taken. They
were told to be sure to line up the shot carefully by
angling the camera horizontally or vertically and zoom-
ing in as needed to get the best shot of the whole object.
On the tour, participants visited 30 objects, including
paintings, sculptures, pottery, tools, jewels, and mosaics;
of these 30 objects, 15 were photographed and 15 were
observed. Two sets were used to counterbalance the
objects across the photographed and observed condi-
tions, and participants were randomly assigned to one of
the two sets. Each participant was tested individually and
was given a list of the names of the 30 works of art. The
participant read the name of the first object out loud to
the experimenter, who then took him or her to that
object. The participant was directed to look at the object
for 20 s and then was instructed either to take a photo or
to continue looking at the object for another 10 s. After
the 30 s, the participant read the name of the next object
on the list, and the same procedure was repeated, for all
30 objects. The objects were located in four different
rooms of the museum, and the tour was ordered such
that participants viewed each object once without pass-
ing by it later.
The next day, participants’ memory was assessed by
first asking them to write down the names of all of the
objects they remembered and to indicate which of the
objects they had photographed and which they had
observed. If they could not remember the name of an
object, they were told to write a brief description of it.
After completing the free-recall test, participants were
given a name-recognition test that consisted of the names
of the 30 objects of art from the museum tour randomly
intermixed with 10 names of other objects of art that
were not part of the museum tour but that were objects
participants could plausibly have seen in the museum
setting. In the name-recognition test, the names of the
objects appeared one at a time on a computer screen,
and individuals were instructed to indicate for each
object whether they had taken a photo of it on the tour,
had observed it on the tour, or believed that it was a new
object that was not part of the museum tour.
For objects identified as photographed or observed,
participants were asked about a visual detail of that
object and given four multiple-choice response options.
For instance, for the Tang Dynasty warrior figure—
an object on the tour—the visual-detail question was,
“What did the warrior have in his hands?” and the
at FAIRFIELD UNIV LIBRARY on December 26, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

398 Henkel
corresponding response options were “a shield,” “a
spear,” “his helmet,” and “nothing.” Participants then were
asked to rate how confident they were that they had
remembered the detail correctly, using a 4-point scale
(1 = guessing/no confidence; 2 = a little confident; 3 =
confident; 4 = very confident).
Last, participants were given a photo-recognition test
in which the same 40 objects were used but were pre-
sented in a different, random order and a photo of each
object appeared along with its name. Participants’ task
was to indicate whether the object had been photo-
graphed earlier, had been observed earlier, or was new
and, thus, not part of the museum tour.
Results and discussion
An alpha level of .05 was used. Participants’ accuracy in
remembering visual details about the objects they visited
on the museum tour was negatively affected by photo-
graphing the objects. As shown in Table 1, the propor-
tion of questions answered correctly about the objects’
visual details was significantly lower for objects partici-
pants photographed than for objects they observed but
did not photograph, F(1, 26) = 10.95, p = .003, η2 = .42.
Taking a photograph of an object impaired partici-
pants’ accuracy in remembering that the object had been
encountered as well, as shown by the results of a 2 × 2
analysis of variance (ANOVA) that examined the impact
of source (photographed, observed) and specificity of
retrieval cue (name recognition, photo recognition) on
the proportion of objects on the museum tour that were
correctly recognized as having been encountered. As
shown in Figure 1, the main effect for source was signifi-
cant, F(1, 26) = 4.06, p = .05, η2 = .16, as was the main
effect for retrieval cue, F(1, 26) = 17.27, p < .001, η2 = .68,
with no significant interaction, F(1, 26) = 0.33, p = .57.
Recognition accuracy was lower for photographed
objects (.88) than for observed objects (.91) and was
higher when participants saw photos of the objects in the
photo-recognition test (.92) than when they read their
names in the name-recognition test (.87). The order of
the two tests was necessarily fixed because the photo-
recognition test would provide answers to questions
about the objects’ details. The photos presumably pro-
vided additional, more detailed, concrete cues about the
specific objects, and these cues likely contributed to the
memory advantage in the photo-recognition test. However,
although participants did see and read aloud the names of
the objects, because the primary experience of the object
was based on observing it, the photo advantage may also
reflect some degree of encoding specificity.
As noted earlier, research has shown that people bet-
ter remember actions they have performed than actions
they have just thought about or observed (Roediger &
Zaromb, 2010) and, hence, people might be more likely
to remember that they had photographed an object than
to remember that they had observed it, even in the face
of lower detail memory and recognition accuracy for
photographed objects. Results, however, did not show a
source-memory advantage for photographed objects.
The proportion of objects correctly attributed to their
source was examined in a Source (photographed,
observed) × Retrieval Cue (name recognition, photo rec-
ognition) ANOVA. Source accuracy for photographed
objects was in fact lower than for observed objects,
although this difference was driven by a significant inter-
action that qualified the main effects, F(1, 26) = 4.57, p =
.04, η2 = .30. When the names of objects were given as
Table 1. Proportion of Questions Answered Correctly
About Objects’ Visual Details and Locations as a Function of
Photographing or Observing the Objects
Experiment and
measure
Photographed
ObservedWhole Part
Experiment 1
Visual detail .55 (.03) — .64 (.03)
Experiment 2
Visual detail .38 (.02) .46 (.02) .44 (.03)
Location .67 (.03) .45 (.04) .74 (.03)
Note: The table presents proportions for each measure. Standard
errors are shown in parentheses.
.60
.65
.70
.75
.80
.85
.90
.95
1.00
Names as Cues Photos as Cues
Proportion of Items Correctly Recognized as Old
Retrieval-Cue Type
Photo: Whole
Observed
Fig. 1. Results from Experiment 1: proportion of works of art encoun-
tered on the museum tour that were correctly recognized as old as a
function of source and retrieval-cue type. Error bars represent standard
errors.
at FAIRFIELD UNIV LIBRARY on December 26, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Photos and Memory 399
retrieval cues, source accuracy for photographed objects
(.61) and observed objects (.62) did not differ, but when
photos were provided as retrieval cues, source accuracy
was higher for observed objects (.71) than for photo-
graphed objects (.61).
Participants recalled fewer than half of the objects that
they had photographed (M = .47, SE = .04) or observed
(M = .48, SE = .03), with no significant difference between
the two sources, F(1, 26) = 0.09, p = .77; hence, recall
data are not discussed further.
Experiment 2
The findings from Experiment 1 showed no memory
advantage for photographed objects and, in fact, showed
a photo-taking-impairment effect: People remembered
fewer objects overall and remembered fewer details
about the objects they had photographed compared with
objects they had observed. One key difference between
the two conditions in Experiment 1 was that participants
had 30 uninterrupted seconds to view the object in the
observed condition, whereas they had only 20 s to view
the object and then 10 s to line up a shot and take a
photo of it in the photographed condition. Taking a
photo of the object may have diverted participants’ atten-
tion from the object to the camera, thereby reducing
memory for the object, even though the visual focus of
the camera and the resulting photo obviously were about
the object.
In Experiment 2, participants were given 25 uninter-
rupted seconds to view each object, and for objects they
were asked to photograph, they were then given addi-
tional time to do so. In this way, they spent extra time
with the photographed objects; thus, if a photo-taking-
impairment effect were found, it could not be due to
participants’ having less time to view the object. In addi-
tion, a third condition was added in which participants
were asked to take a photo of the object by zooming in
on one specified part of it (e.g., the Tang Dynasty war-
rior’s hands). Pilot testing established that individuals
required an average of 5 to 6 s to angle the camera, zoom
in to take a photo of either the whole object or a speci-
fied part of the object, and glance at the photo in the
camera’s display screen, with no reliable difference in the
amount of time required to take a photo of the whole
object or of a part of the object. This manipulation was
added to address the question of whether focusing on
one specified part draws attention to the object in a way
that photographing the object as a whole does not. It is
possible that the divided attention created by taking a
photo of the whole object is similar to that induced by
multitasking with technology (Smith et al., 2011) and,
therefore, impairs subsequent memory, whereas the
focused attention required to actively and physically
zoom in on a specified feature does not impair subse-
quent memory.
The impact of attentional focus can be further exam-
ined by contrasting people’s memory for the part of the
object on which they did or did not focus. Research on
boundary extension has shown that people’s memory for
a scene often contains nonpresented details that lay just
beyond the actual boundaries of the scene and that this
phenomenon is especially likely to occur when viewing
a close-up scene compared with a wider-angle scene
(Hubbard, Hutchison, & Courtney, 2010; Intraub, Bender,
& Mangels, 1992). Studies on boundary extension have
involved people looking at scenes or photos but not tak-
ing the photos themselves. It remains to be seen whether
the act of zooming in on a part of an object while photo-
graphing it will impair or enhance memory. Along similar
lines, Experiment 2 examined whether individuals’ mem-
ory for a contextual detail unrelated to the object’s
appearance—what room the object had been in—would
be helped or harmed by their focusing attention on pho-
tographing the object.
Method
Participants were 46 undergraduates (10 men, 36 women;
mean age = 19.78 years, SD = 1.28, range = 18–23). The
materials and procedure were similar to those used in
Experiment 1 with the following exceptions. The works
of art on the museum tour consisted of 27 objects, of
which 9 were photographed as a whole, 9 were photo-
graphed by zooming in on a specified part, and 9 were
observed but not photographed. Objects in these three
conditions were counterbalanced. For objects photo-
graphed by zooming in on a specific part, the particular
feature that was zoomed in on was also counterbalanced
(e.g., the head vs. the feet of a statue; the ground vs. the
sky in a painting), which resulted in six sets. Participants
were tested individually and were randomly assigned to
one of the six sets. After reading the name of the first
object on the list out loud to the experimenter, the par-
ticipant was taken to the object and given 25 s to view
the object. For some of the objects, after the 25 s of view-
ing, the participant was instructed to photograph either
the whole object or a specified part of the object. After
doing so, the participant read the name of the next object
on the list, was brought to the object, and the same pro-
cedure was repeated, for all 27 objects.
The next day, participants were asked to remember
the objects visited on the museum tour. They were first
given the names of various objects of art (the 27 old
objects randomly intermixed with 10 new objects) and
asked to indicate which of the objects were part of the
museum tour and which were new. For those objects
identified as part of the museum tour, participants were
at FAIRFIELD UNIV LIBRARY on December 26, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

400 Henkel
asked (a) to indicate whether they had taken a photo of
the object or had observed the object and (b) to answer
two questions about different visual details of the object,
each of which had four response options. For objects
photographed by zooming in on one part of the object,
one question pertained to a feature zoomed in on and
one question pertained to a feature not zoomed in on.
Participants were asked to rate their confidence in the
remembered details and then were given a photo-recog-
nition test. After indicating whether the depicted object
had been photographed, had been observed, or was
new, participants were shown a map of the museum with
four numbered rooms and asked to indicate which room
the object had been located in.
Results and discussion
An alpha level of .05 was used, and all follow-up com-
parisons for significant effects were post hoc Scheffé
tests. As Table 1 shows, the proportion of correctly
answered questions about visual details of objects was
affected by what participants did when they viewed the
object, F(2, 90) = 5.15, p = .008, η2 = .11. Replicating the
photo-taking-impairment effect seen in Experiment 1,
results showed that participants’ memory accuracy for
visual details about the objects was significantly lower for
objects photographed as a whole than for objects that
were only observed. However, the manner in which
objects were photographed mediated this effect: When
objects were photographed by zooming in on one part,
memory for details was not harmed and was, in fact,
comparable to memory for details when objects were
observed.
Furthermore, although photographing the objects as a
whole led to a decline in participants’ memory for visual
details about the objects, zooming in on one aspect of an
object served to protect memory not only for the part
that was zoomed in on but also for the part that was not
zoomed in on. For objects that were photographed by
zooming in on one feature, no significant difference in
the proportion of details remembered correctly was
found between the details that were zoomed in on (M =
.48, SE = .03) and the details that were not zoomed in on
(M = .45, SE = .02), F(1, 45) = 0.97, p = .33. Thus, what
the person remembered was not necessarily what the
camera shot captured—the camera’s “eye” is not the
“mind’s eye.” This suggests that the effect is not a percep-
tual process whereby additional visual attention is paid
to the feature being zoomed in on but, rather, is based on
paying attention to the object in its entirety as one focuses
the camera on one feature of it, and is consistent with the
perceptual-schema account of boundary extension,
which states that observers activate the larger context of
a scene while viewing it (Hubbard et al., 2010).
Interestingly, the “boundaries” in the perceptual
schema appear to have been centered around the object
and did not extend to the broader context of the room
the object was located in. The inclusion of questions
about memory for the location of objects allowed for
another glimpse into how photographing objects can
impair memory, and results showed that participants’
memory for contextual details about objects was also
impaired by photographing them. There was a significant
main effect of source on memory accuracy for the loca-
tion of the object in the museum, F(2, 90) = 32.68, p <
.001, η2 = .73 (see Table 1). Participants were less accu-
rate at remembering the location of objects they had
photographed—either in whole or in part—than the
location of objects they had merely observed. Participants’
location memory was less accurate, in fact, when they
had taken a photo of part of the object than when they
had photographed the object as a whole, which suggests
that the added attention that preserved memory for
details when photographing part of an object came at the
expense of attention to surrounding contextual features,
such as the object’s location.
As in Experiment 1, photographing objects also had a
detrimental effect on individuals’ ability to recognize
which objects had been part of the museum tour. As
shown in Figure 2, an ANOVA examining the impact of
source (photographed whole object, photographed part
of object, observed) and retrieval cue (name recognition,
.60
.65
.70
.75
.80
.85
.90
.95
1.00
Names as Cues Photos as Cues
Proportion of Items Correctly Recognized as Old
Retrieval-Cue Type
Photo: Whole
Photo: Part
Observed
Fig. 2. Results from Experiment 2: proportion of works of art encoun-
tered on the museum tour that were correctly recognized as old as a
function of source and retrieval-cue type. Error bars represent standard
errors.
at FAIRFIELD UNIV LIBRARY on December 26, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Photos and Memory 401
photo recognition) on recognition accuracy yielded a sig-
nificant main effect for source, F(2, 90) = 4.03, p = .02,
η2 = .09. Post hoc Scheffé tests showed that participants
recognized fewer objects that they had photographed as
a whole (.83) than objects that they had observed but
not photographed (.87) or objects that they had photo-
graphed a part of (.86). Participants’ recognition accuracy
did not differ for objects that were observed or photo-
graphed by zooming in on one part. A significant
main effect for retrieval cue was also found, F(1, 45) =
32.06, p < .001, η2 = .71, with significantly higher recogni-
tion accuracy when photos were provided as cues (.89)
than when only the names were provided as cues (.81),
with no significant interaction, F(2, 90) = 0.45, p = .64.
Source accuracy in remembering whether the objects
had been photographed or only observed was far from
perfect but was above chance level, and as in Experiment
1, there was a significant Source × Retrieval Cue interac-
tion, F(2, 90) = 3.01, p = .05, η2 = .07. For objects that were
observed, source accuracy was higher when photos were
provided as cues (.69) than when only the names were
given as cues (.60). However, for objects that were photo-
graphed (either in whole or in part), source accuracy did
not reliably differ when photos rather than names were
provided as retrieval cues—whole photos: photo retrieval
cue = .64, name retrieval cue = .67; partial photos: photo
retrieval cue = .71, name retrieval cue = .68.
General Discussion
The findings from these two experiments show that pho-
tographing objects on a museum tour had a detrimental
effect on memory of the objects. When participants took
photos of whole objects after viewing them, they remem-
bered fewer objects and remembered fewer details about
the objects and the objects’ locations than when they
only observed the objects without photographing them.
Despite the added time or attention required to angle the
camera and adjust the lens so as to capture the best shot
of the object in its entirety, the act of photographing the
object appears to enable people to dismiss the object
from memory, thereby relying on the external devise of
the camera to “remember” for them (see Sparrow et al.,
2011). However, when participants were asked to take a
photo of a specific part of the object, which required
them to zoom in on that part, their subsequent recogni-
tion and detail memory accuracy was not impaired, and,
in fact, their memory for features that were not zoomed
in on was just as high as their memory for features that
were zoomed in on. This finding highlights key differ-
ences between people’s memory and the camera’s “mem-
ory” and suggests that the additional attentional and
cognitive processes engaged by this focused activity can
eliminate the photo-taking-impairment effect.
Given the ubiquity of digital photography in people’s
lives, understanding how memory is affected by the act of
taking photographs is a meaningful avenue of research.
Future research should examine whether similar effects
are seen when people are free to choose what objects to
photograph. After all, people are likely to take photos of
objects that they value, find important, or want to remem-
ber. Their metacognitive beliefs about whether they would
be likely to forget an object without an external record
and their preference for external versus internal storage
should also be examined (see Stöber & Esser, 2001).
In addition, the present study examined only the role
of photographing objects, not what happens when peo-
ple review those photos after taking them. Past work has
shown that reviewing photos can provide valuable
retrieval cues that reactivate and retain memories for the
photographed experiences (e.g., Koutstaal et al., 1998;
Koutstaal et al., 1999), although research has suggested
that the sheer volume and lack of organization of digital
photos for personal memories discourages many people
from accessing and reminiscing about them (Bowen &
Petrelli, 2011). In addition, despite the ease of social shar-
ing of photos today, families spend less time together in
person sharing and reviewing their digital photos than
they did with physical prints and photo albums in the past
(Nunes, Greenberg, & Neustaedter, 2009). Similar to the
finding that reviewing notes taken during class boosts
retention better than merely taking notes (Bui, Myerson,
& Hale, 2013; Knight & McKelvie, 1986), it may be that our
photos can help us remember only if we actually access
and interact with them, rather than just amass them.
Author Contributions
L. A. Henkel is the sole author of this article and is responsible
for its content.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Alyssa Accomando, Chelsea Morales, and Andrea
Teofilo for their work on this project, and to Jill Deupi and
Carey Weber of the Bellarmine Museum of Art for their help
and support. Thanks also to Ira Hyman and two anonymous
reviewers for their insightful comments.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared that she had no conflicts of interest with
respect to her authorship or the publication of this article.
References
Berry, M., Kapur, N., Williams, L., Hodges, S., Watson, P.,
Smyth, G., . . . Wood, K. (2007). The use of a wearable
camera, SenseCam, as a pictorial diary to improve autobio-
graphical memory in a patient with limbic encephalitis: A
preliminary report. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 17,
582–601.
at FAIRFIELD UNIV LIBRARY on December 26, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

402 Henkel
Bowen, S., & Petrelli, D. (2011). Remembering today tomorrow:
Exploring the human-centered design of digital mementos.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69,
324–337.
Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013). Note-taking with com-
puters: Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 299–309.
Burt, C. D. B., Kemp, S., & Conway, M. (2003). Themes, events,
and episodes in autobiographical memory. Memory &
Cognition, 31, 317–325.
Burt, C. D. B., Kemp, S., & Conway, M. (2008). Ordering the
components of autobiographical events. Acta Psychologica,
127, 36–45.
Chalfen, R. (1998). Family photograph appreciation: Dynamics
of medium, interpretation and memory. Communication &
Cognition, 31, 161–178.
Deocampo, J., & Hudson, J. (2003). Reinstatement of 2-year-
olds’ event memory using photographs. Memory, 11, 13–25.
Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student
learning. Computers & Education, 50, 906–914.
Golding, J. M., & MacLeod, C. M. (1998). Intentional forgetting:
Interdisciplinary approaches. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harrison, B. (2002). Photographic visions and narrative inquiry.
Narrative Inquiry, 12, 87–111.
Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and the lec-
ture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15, 46–64.
Hodges, S., Berry, E., & Wood, K. (2011). SenseCam: A wear-
able camera that stimulates and rehabilitates autobiographi-
cal memory. Memory, 19, 685–696.
Hubbard, T. L., Hutchison, J. L., & Courtney, J. R. (2010). Boundary
extension: Findings and theories. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 63, 1467–1494.
Hudson, J. A., & Fivush, R. (1991). As time goes by: Sixth grad-
ers remember a kindergarten experience. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 5, 347–360.
Hyman, I. E., Jr., Boss, S., Wise, B. M., McKenzie, K. E., &
Caggiano, J. M. (2010). Did you see the unicycling clown?
Inattentional blindness while walking and talking on a cell
phone. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 597–607.
Intraub, H., Bender, R. S., & Mangels, J. A. (1992). Looking at
pictures but remembering scenes. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 180–191.
Kemp, S., Burt, C. D. B., & Malinen, S. (2009). Investigating the
structure of autobiographical memory using reaction times.
Memory, 17, 511–517.
Knight, L. J., & McKelvie, S. J. (1986). Effects of attendance,
note-taking, and review on memory for a lecture: Encoding
vs. external storage functions of notes. Canadian Journal
of Behavioural Science, 18, 52–61.
Koutstaal, W., Schacter, D., Johnson, M., Angell, K., & Gross,
M. (1998). Post-event review in older and younger adults:
Improving memory accessibility of complex everyday
events. Psychology and Aging, 13, 277–296.
Koutstaal, W., Schacter, D., Johnson, M., & Galluccio, L. (1999).
Facilitation and impairment of event memory produced by
photograph review. Memory & Cognition, 27, 478–493.
Loveday, C., & Conway, M. A. (2011). Using SenseCam with an
amnesic patient: Accessing inaccessible everyday memo-
ries. Memory, 19, 697–704.
Milton, F., Muhlert, N., Butler, C. R., Smith, A., Benattayallah,
A., & Zeman, A. Z. (2011). An fMRI study of long-
term everyday memory using SenseCam. Memory, 19, 733–
744.
Nunes, M., Greenberg, S., & Neustaedter, C. (2009). Using phys-
ical memorabilia as opportunities to move into collocated
digital photo-sharing. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 67, 1087–1111.
Roediger, H. L., III, & Zaromb, F. M. (2010). Memory for action.
In L. Backman & L. Nyberg (Eds.), Memory, aging and the
brain (pp. 24–52). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Schacter, D., Koutstaal, W., Johnson, M., Gross, M., & Angell,
K. (1997). False recollection induced by photographs: A
comparison of older and younger adults. Psychology and
Aging, 12, 203–215.
Schwartz, H. (2013). How many photos have been taken ever?
Retrieved from http://www.buzzfeed.com/hunterschwarz/
how-many-photos-have-been-taken-ever-6zgv
Smith, T. S., Isaak, M. I., Senette, C. G., & Abadie, B. G. (2011).
Effects of cell-phone and text-message distractions on true
and false recognition. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 14, 351–358.
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on
memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at
our fingertips. Science, 333, 476–478.
St. Jacques, P., Rubin, D. C., LaBar, K. S., & Cabeza, R. (2008).
The short and long of it: Neural correlates of temporal-order
memory for autobiographical events. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 20, 1327–1341.
St. Jacques, P., & Schacter, D. L. (2013). Modifying memory:
Selectively enhancing and updating personal memories for
a museum tour by reactivating them. Psychological Science,
24, 537–543.
Stöber, J., & Esser, K. B. (2001). Text anxiety and metamemory:
General preference for external over internal information
storage. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 775–781.
at FAIRFIELD UNIV LIBRARY on December 26, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from