Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35441362›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2023

Measuring event segmentation: An investigation into the stability of event boundary agreement across groups.

Karen Sasmita, Khena M Swallow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Karen SasmitaDepartment of Psychology, Cornell University, 211 Uris Hall, Ithaca, NY, 14850, USA.
Khena M SwallowDepartment of Psychology, Cornell University, 211 Uris Hall, Ithaca, NY, 14850, USA. kms424@cornell.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7033-9825

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People spontaneously divide everyday experience into smaller units (event segmentation). To measure event segmentation, studies typically ask participants to explicitly mark the boundaries between events as they watch a movie (segmentation task). Their data may then be used to infer how others are likely to segment the same movie. However, significant variability in performance across individuals could undermine the ability to generalize across groups, especially as more research moves online. To address this concern, we used several widely employed and novel measures to quantify segmentation agreement across different sized groups (n = 2-32) using data collected on different platforms and movie types (in-lab & commercial film vs. online & everyday activities). All measures captured nonrandom and video-specific boundaries, but with notable between-sample variability. Samples of 6-18 participants were required to reliably detect video-driven segmentation behavior within a single sample. As sample size increased, agreement values improved and eventually stabilized at comparable sample sizes for in-lab & commercial film data and online & everyday activities data. Stabilization occurred at smaller sample sizes when measures reflected (1) agreement between two groups versus agreement between an individual and group, and (2) boundary identification between small (fine-grained) rather than large (coarse-grained) events. These analyses inform the tailoring of sample sizes based on the comparison of interest, materials, and data collection platform. In addition to demonstrating the reliability of online and in-lab segmentation performance at moderate sample sizes, this study supports the use of segmentation data to infer when events are likely to be segmented.

Indexed as

Motion PicturesData CollectionHumansReproducibility of ResultsEvent cognitionEvent segmentationNaturalistic perceptionOnline data collectionSegmentation agreement

Identifiers

PMID35441362
PMCPMC9017965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.