ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2023
Machine-learning as a validated tool to characterize individual differences in free recall of naturalistic events.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Event segmentation applications in large language model enabled automated recall assessments.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- The "Naturalistic Free Recall" dataset: four stories, hundreds of participants, and high-fidelity transcriptions.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Unravelling individual rhythmic abilities using machine learning.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Language-agnostic, Automated Assessment of Listeners' Speech Recall Using Large Language Models.Trends in hearingArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of naturalistic stimuli, such as narrative movies, is gaining popularity in many fields, characterizing memory, affect, and decision-making. Narrative recall paradigms are often used to capture the complexity and richness of memory for naturalistic events. However, scoring narrative recalls is time-consuming and prone to human biases. Here, we show the validity and reliability of using a natural language processing tool, the Universal Sentence Encoder (USE), to automatically score narrative recalls. We compared the reliability in scoring made between two independent raters (i.e., hand scored) and between our automated algorithm and individual raters (i.e., automated) on trial-unique video clips of magic tricks. Study 1 showed that our automated segmentation approaches yielded high reliability and reflected measures yielded by hand scoring. Study 1 further showed that the results using USE outperformed another popular natural language processing tool, GloVe. In Study 2, we tested whether our automated approach remained valid when testing individuals varying on clinically relevant dimensions that influence episodic memory, age, and anxiety. We found that our automated approach was equally reliable across both age groups and anxiety groups, which shows the efficacy of our approach to assess narrative recall in large-scale individual difference analysis. In sum, these findings suggested that machine learning approach implementing USE is a promising tool for scoring large-scale narrative recalls and perform individual difference analysis for research using naturalistic stimuli.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36085232What 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.