Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40108261›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Collecting initial accounts using ChatCharlie chatbot improves eyewitness memory in later investigative interviews.

Coral J Dando, Charlotte E Adam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Coral J DandoDepartment of Psychology, University of Westminster, 115 New Cavendish Street, London, W1W 6UW, UK. c.dando@westminster.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6196-8475
Charlotte E AdamDivision of Psychology, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Initial account interviews (IAi) offer eyewitnesses more immediate opportunities to answer a series of brief questions about their experiences prior to an in-depth, more formal investigative interview. An IAi is typically elicited in-person near/at the scene of a crime using broadly systematic questioning. Retrieval practice can improve subsequent recall in some contexts, but there is a dearth of research centred on the potential costs and benefits of a quick IAi. Furthermore, where an in-person IAi is impossible, no alternative quick provision exists. Given the systematic nature of the IAi protocol, we developed a conversational chatbot as a potential alternative. Using a mock-witness paradigm, we investigated the memory performance of adults from the general population during in-depth in-person interviews one week after having provided an IAi 10 min post event either (1) in person, (2) via the ChatCharlie chatbot, or (3) no IAi (control). IAi conditions leveraged significantly improved event recall during later investigative interviews versus the Control. Accounts were more accurate and complete, and more correct information was remembered without increased errors indicating the potential of digital agents for IAi purposes Findings concur with predictions from theoretical understanding of episodic memory consolidation and the empirical eyewitness literature regarding the benefits of practice in some contexts.

Indexed as

Interviews as TopicMental RecallAdultCrimeFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultChatbotsDelayEyewitness memoryInitial accountsInvestigative interviewMemory consolidation

Identifiers

PMID40108261
PMCPMC11923045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.