Both sides now: visual perspective switching in episodic future thought and its relationship to dissociation
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
Visual perspective in episodic memory and future thinking is conventionally treated as a one-dimensional construct, with first- and third-person perspectives at two poles of a continuum. However, given the opportunity, individuals often ascribe both of these perspectives to their imagery of a single event. In the present study, we found that "dual-perspective" imagery (involving switching between first- and third-person perspectives) is slightly more common than third-person imagery and is associated with higher self-reported ratings of centrality (importance in an individual's life story) and emotional intensity than other perspective categories. Moreover, dual-perspective imagery was correlated with dissociative experiences but unrelated to self-reported memory and prospection abilities. We suggest, based on other known correlates of dissociation (such as daydreaming and absorption), that switching between first- and third-person perspectives may be indicative of elaborative processing of and deeper engagement with imagined future events.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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