Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36085232›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2023

Machine-learning as a validated tool to characterize individual differences in free recall of naturalistic events.

Xinxu Shen, Troy Houser, David V Smith, Vishnu P Murty

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Xinxu ShenDepartment of Psychology, Temple University, 1701 N 13th St, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7319-641X
Troy HouserDepartment of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403, USA.
David V SmithDepartment of Psychology, Temple University, 1701 N 13th St, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA.
Vishnu P MurtyDepartment of Psychology, Temple University, 1701 N 13th St, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA. vishnu.murty@temple.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

IndividualityMachine LearningAlgorithmsHumansLanguageReproducibility of ResultsEpisodic memory and recallMachine learningNaturalistic stimuli

Identifiers

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.