ArticleScientific data2024
The "Naturalistic Free Recall" dataset: four stories, hundreds of participants, and high-fidelity transcriptions.
Article in Scientific data, 2024. 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.
- Memory in the Palm of Your Hand: Smartphone-based Methods for Measuring Memory in the Wild.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2026Article
- Healthcare professionals' perceptions of participation in one state physician health program.The American journal on addictions · 2026Article
- Hippocampo-neocortical interaction as compressive retrieval-augmented generation.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Interactive narratives reveal the personalizing effect of agency on episodic memory.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Event segmentation applications in large language model enabled automated recall assessments.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Exposure to content written by large language models can reduce stigma around opioid use disorder.NPJ artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- The "Naturalistic Free Recall" dataset: four stories, hundreds of participants, and high-fidelity transcriptions.Scientific data · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The "Naturalistic Free Recall" dataset provides transcribed verbal recollections of four spoken narratives collected from 229 participants. Each participant listened to two stories, varying in duration from approximately 8 to 13 minutes, recorded by different speakers. Subsequently, participants were tasked with verbally recalling the narrative content in as much detail as possible and in the correct order. The dataset includes high-fidelity, time-stamped text transcripts of both the original narratives and participants' recollections. To validate the dataset, we apply a previously published automated method to score memory performance for narrative content. Using this approach, we extend effects traditionally observed in classic list-learning paradigms. The analysis of narrative contents and its verbal recollection presents unique challenges compared to controlled list-learning experiments. To facilitate the use of these rich data by the community, we offer an overview of recent computational methods that can be used to annotate and evaluate key properties of narratives and their recollections. Using advancements in machine learning and natural language processing, these methods can help the community understand the role of event structure, discourse properties, prediction error, high-level semantic features (e.g., idioms, humor), and more. All experimental materials, code, and data are publicly available to facilitate new advances in understanding human memory.
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.