Bainbridge and Baker [1] argue that boundary extension (BE), false memory beyond a view, is an artifact of stimulus selection. They dismiss theoretical explanations that include scene construction [2,3], and suggest removal of BE from textbooks. Their empirical work is an admirable study of scene errors, but the bridge between their data and their sweeping conclusions about BE is not well-grounded. They claim that BE is considered ‘universal’ and, thus, their observation of contraction (loss of peripheral content) in addition to extension violates a fundamental premise. They claim that reliance on narrow ‘recycled’ stimulus sets: object(s) centered on ‘generic’, non-scenic backgrounds created the artifact. Neither claim is correct.

Bainbridge和Baker [1]认为边界扩展（BE）是视图之外的错误记忆，是刺激选择的产物。他们忽略了包括场景构建的理论解释[2,3]，并建议从教科书中删除BE。他们的经验工作是对场景错误的令人钦佩的研究，但是他们的数据与关于BE的详尽结论之间的桥梁并不充分。他们声称BE被认为是“通用的”，因此，除了伸展之外，他们对收缩（周围内容的损失）的观察也违反了一个基本前提。他们声称依赖狭窄的“循环利用”刺激集：以“一般”非风景背景为中心的物体产生了假象。两种说法都不正确。