ArticleiScience2022
Event segmentation reveals working memory forgetting rate.
Article in iScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of working memory in encoding the temporal structure of events in episodic memory: Evidence from a dual-task paradigm.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- The role of context in continuity and segmentation.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Coarser event segmentation and impaired temporal order memory in subclinical ADHD.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Dynamic data visualizations as events: effects of framing and change salience on segmenting dynamic maps.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
- Individual differences in experiential diversity shape event segmentation granularity.iScience · 2025Article
- Aberrant neural event segmentation during a continuous social narrative in trauma-exposed older adolescents and young adults.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- Large language models can segment narrative events similarly to humans.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Here it comes: Active forgetting triggered even just by anticipation of an impending event boundary.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Article
- Multiple memory systems for efficient temporal order memory.Hippocampus · 2023Article
- Individual differences in neural event segmentation of continuous experiences.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- Synchronous high-amplitude co-fluctuations of functional brain networks during movie-watching.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2023Article
- Neural event segmentation of continuous experience in human infants.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We encounter the world as a continuous flow and effortlessly segment sequences of events into episodes. This process of event segmentation engages working memory (WM) for tracking the flow of events and impacts subsequent memory accuracy. WM is limited in how much information (i.e., WM capacity) and for how long the information is retained (i.e., forgetting rate). In this study, across multiple tasks, we estimated participants' WM capacity and forgetting rate in a dynamic context and evaluated their relationship to event segmentation. A U-shaped relationship across tasks shows that individuals who segmented the movie more finely or coarsely than the average have a faster WM forgetting rate. A separate task assessing long-term memory retrieval revealed that the coarse-segmenters have better recognition of temporal order of events compared to the fine-segmenters. These findings show that event segmentation employs dissociable memory strategies and correlates with how long information is retained in WM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.