ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2022
Quantifying the narrative flow of imagined versus autobiographical stories.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retention and transformation of internal experiences in autobiographical memory narratives.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Memory justifications provide valid indicators of retrieval accuracy across time.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Perplexity and proximity: Large language model perplexity complements semantic distance metrics for the detection of incoherent speech.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2025Article
- Context modulates brain state dynamics and behavioral responses during narrative comprehension.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Examining embedded lies through computational text analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Coherence and comprehensibility: Large language models predict lay understanding of health-related content.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2025Article
- How developments in natural language processing help us in understanding human behaviour.Nature human behaviour · 2024Review
- Verbal lie detection using Large Language Models.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lifelong experiences and learned knowledge lead to shared expectations about how common situations tend to unfold. Such knowledge of narrative event flow enables people to weave together a story. However, comparable computational tools to evaluate the flow of events in narratives are limited. We quantify the differences between autobiographical and imagined stories by introducing sequentiality, a measure of narrative flow of events, drawing probabilistic inferences from a cutting-edge large language model (GPT-3). Sequentiality captures the flow of a narrative by comparing the probability of a sentence with and without its preceding story context. We applied our measure to study thousands of diary-like stories, collected from crowdworkers, about either a recent remembered experience or an imagined story on the same topic. The results show that imagined stories have higher sequentiality than autobiographical stories and that the sequentiality of autobiographical stories increases when the memories are retold several months later. In pursuit of deeper understandings of how sequentiality measures the flow of narratives, we explore proportions of major and minor events in story sentences, as annotated by crowdworkers. We find that lower sequentiality is associated with higher proportions of major events. The methods and results highlight opportunities to use cutting-edge computational analyses, such as sequentiality, on large corpora of matched imagined and autobiographical stories to investigate the influences of memory and reasoning on language generation processes.
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.