The Similarity Structure of Real-World Memories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do we mentally organize our memories of life events? Two episodes may be connected because they share a similar location, time period, activity, spatial environment, or social and emotional content. However, we lack an understanding of how each of these dimensions contributes to the perceived similarity of two life memories. We addressed this question with a data-driven approach, eliciting pairs of real-life memories from participants. Participants annotated the social, purposive, spatial, temporal, and emotional characteristics of their memories. We found that the overall similarity of memories was influenced by all of these factors, but to very different extents. Emotional features were the most consistent single predictor of overall memory similarity. Memories with different emotional tone were reliably perceived to be dissimilar, even when they occurred at similar times and places and involved similar people; conversely, memories with a shared emotional tone were perceived as similar even when they occurred at different times and places, and involved different people. A predictive model explained over half of the variance in memory similarity, using only information about (i) the emotional properties of events and (ii) the primary action or purpose of events. Emotional features may make an outsized contribution to event similarity because they provide compact summaries of an event’s goals and self-related outcomes, which are critical information for future planning and decision making. Thus, in order to understand and improve real-world memory function, we must account for the strong influence of emotional and purposive information on memory organization and memory search. Significance Our brains enable us to understand and act within the present, informed by previous, related life experience. But how are our life experiences organized so that one event can be related to another? Theories have suggested that we use spatiotemporal, social, causal, purposive, and emotional dimensions to inter-relate our memories; however, these organizing principles are usually studied using impersonal laboratory stimuli. Here, we mapped and modeled the connections between people’s own annotated life memories. We found that life events are linked by a variety of factors, but are predominantly connected in memory by their primary activity and emotional character. This highlights a need for theories of memory organization and retrieval to better account for the role of high-level actions and emotions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".