Cited by 103Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsCognitive Functions and Memory

Changes in events alter how people remember recent information

Open access
Swallow, Khena M., Barch, Deanna M., Head, Denise, Maley, Corey J., Holder, Derek, Zacks, Jeffrey M.·2011·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

Observers spontaneously segment larger activities into smaller events. For example, “washing a car” might be segmented into “scrubbing,” “rinsing,” and “drying” the car. This process, called event segmentation, separates “what is happening now” from “what just happened.” In this study, we show that event segmentation predicts activity in the hippocampus when people access recent information. Participants watched narrative film and occasionally attempted to retrieve from memory objects that recently appeared in the film. The delay between object presentation and test was always 5 sec. Critically, for some of the objects, the event changed during the delay whereas for others the event continued. Using fMRI, we examined whether retrieval-related brain activity differed when the event changed during the delay. Brain regions involved in remembering past experiences over long periods, including the hippocampus, were more active during retrieval when the event changed during the delay. Thus, the way an object encountered just 5 sec ago is retrieved from memory appears to depend in part on what happened in those 5 sec. These data strongly suggest that the segmentation of ongoing activity into events is a control process that regulates when memory for events is updated.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/jocn.2010.21524

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous work found hand-labeled event boundaries associated with univariate activity increases in a network overlapping high-level areas.

    “Previous work has shown that hand-labeled event boundaries are associated with univariate activity increases in a network of regions overlapping our high-level areas (Ezzyat & Davachi, 2011; Speer, Zacks, & Reynolds, 2007; Swallow et al., 2011; Whitney et al., 2009; Zacks, Braver, et al., 2001; Zacks, Speer, Swallow, & Maley, 2010)”

    From Discovering Event Structure in Continuous Narrative Perception and Memory (2017) · cites this paper as Swallow et al., 2011

    The Materials and Methods (Materials; page unavailable) describe event boundaries identified from observers’ button presses. The Results (Imaging Data; page unavailable) report greater activity in medial temporal and parietal regions when objects were retrieved across an event boundary, but this is a retrieval-related effect, not a demonstrated network-wide increase at the hand-labeled boundaries themselves. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cohen JD, MacWhinney B, Flatt M, & Provost J (1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25(2), 257– 271.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Swallow, K. M., Barch, D. M., Head, D., Maley, C. J., Holder, D., & Zacks, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science (US)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2011-05-01
Volume
23
Issue
5
Pages
1052-1064
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2097062694
Cited by
103
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion)
  • Open Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis) (submittedVersion)
  • KU ScholarWorks (The University of Kansas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Washington University in St. Louis
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH070674)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
event segmentation, recent memory, memory retrieval, hippocampus, narrative film, episodic memory, memory updating, ongoing activity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Female, Hippocampus, Humans, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Photic Stimulation, Reference Values, Serial Learning, Time Perception, Recognition, Psychology, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review