Remembering what we imagine: the role of event schemas in shaping how imagined autobiographical events are recalled
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much like recalling autobiographical memories, constructing imagined autobiographical events depends on episodic memory processes. The ability to imagine events contributes to several future-oriented behaviors (e.g., decision-making, problem solving), which relies, in part, on the ability to remember the imagined events. A factor affecting the memorability of such events is their adherence to event schemas-conceptualizations of how events generally unfold. In the current study, we examined how two aspects of event schemas-event expectancy and familiarity-affect the ability to recall imagined events. Participants first imagined and described in detail autobiographical events that either aligned with or deviated from an event, expected to occur in a context (e.g., a kitchen) that was either familiar or unfamiliar. This resulted in imaginations ranging from maximally schema-congruent (expected events in a familiar context) to maximally novel (unexpected events in an unfamiliar context). Twenty-four hours later, participants recalled these imagined events. Recollections were scored for the number of reinstated details from the imaginations and the number of newly added details. We found greater reinstatement of details for both the maximally congruent and maximally novel events, while maximally novel events were recalled more precisely than other events (i.e., fewer added details). Our results indicate a complementary benefit to remembering schematic and novel imagined events, which may guide equally important but distinct future-oriented behaviors.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it