Quantifying the narrative flow of imagined versus autobiographical stories.
deep neural networks
imagination
memory
narrative
natural language processing
Journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
ISSN: 1091-6490
Titre abrégé: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7505876
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 11 2022
08 11 2022
Historique:
entrez:
2
11
2022
pubmed:
3
11
2022
medline:
5
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36322749
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2211715119
pmc: PMC9659415
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2211715119Subventions
Organisme : NIH Brain Initiative
ID : K99MH120048
Références
Psychol Rev. 1988 Apr;95(2):163-82
pubmed: 3375398
Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1126-77
pubmed: 17662975
Psychol Rev. 2020 Apr;127(3):327-361
pubmed: 32223284
Front Hum Neurosci. 2020 Apr 29;14:152
pubmed: 32410975
Memory. 2011 Jul;19(5):501-13
pubmed: 21864214
J Cogn Neurosci. 2019 Jun;31(6):874-884
pubmed: 30883290
Psychol Bull. 2007 Mar;133(2):273-93
pubmed: 17338600
Behav Res Methods. 2014 Sep;46(3):904-11
pubmed: 24142837
Neuropsychologia. 2018 Feb;110:1-6
pubmed: 29246485
Clin Psychol Rev. 1998 Dec;18(8):933-47
pubmed: 9885768
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996 Sep;71(3):588-602
pubmed: 8831163
Sci Adv. 2020 Aug 07;6(32):eaba2196
pubmed: 32821822
Neuropsychologia. 2003;41(3):334-40
pubmed: 12457758
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007 May 29;362(1481):773-86
pubmed: 17395575
Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2016 Jun;50(2):296-319
pubmed: 26433588
Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Feb;12(2):72-9
pubmed: 18178125
J Neurosci. 1981 Jun;1(6):635-40
pubmed: 7346571
Psychol Bull. 1998 Mar;123(2):162-85
pubmed: 9522683
Hippocampus. 2019 Mar;29(3):162-183
pubmed: 30734391
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 May 12;117(19):10165-10171
pubmed: 32341156
Trends Neurosci. 2012 Apr;35(4):211-9
pubmed: 22398180
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Jun 29;118(26):
pubmed: 34172568