Our brains create mental "chapters" with new event segmentation study(psypost.org)
psypost.org
Our brains create mental "chapters" with new event segmentation study
https://www.psypost.org/scientists-sheds-light-on-how-our-brains-create-mental-chapters-with-new-event-segmentation-study/
41 comments
I feel like my ADHD brain creates a bunch of sticky notes that then get attached to a page in a notebook, which is then unceremoniously shoved into a backpack with its cover open so that the sticky notes come off of the pages and fall into the backpack and get crumpled.
It either does this, or it superglues the sticky note to the zipper of the backpack so its always the thing you think about first.
Thank you so much for the laugh! I'm definitely quoting this the next time it comes up in conversation, absolutely nails it lol.
[deleted]
Well…if you present stories, for sure we gonna make chapters out of it. Or beats, even.
I wonder what the results would have been if people were showed documentary footage with no narration ? But my suspicion is that just like we sometimes see human faces in places they clearly don’t belong, structuring information in a story format (beginning, middle, end with rises and falls in between) is an intrinsic part of how we process.
Maybe it’s not so much that we like stories, but that we see stories everywhere and the more information takes this digest form, the more we feel at ease ?
I wonder what the results would have been if people were showed documentary footage with no narration ? But my suspicion is that just like we sometimes see human faces in places they clearly don’t belong, structuring information in a story format (beginning, middle, end with rises and falls in between) is an intrinsic part of how we process.
Maybe it’s not so much that we like stories, but that we see stories everywhere and the more information takes this digest form, the more we feel at ease ?
We always predict as well we can - that's just how the brain works. Even without narration we'll be subconsciously comparing what we're seeing to past experiences and using those experiences to predict what comes next at various levels of abstraction.
I highly doubt we have any intrinsic bias towards perceiving things as following a story template, since our DNA has been shaped by nature, not stories. The major bias we do have, encoded in the way that our brain works, is just that nature is largely predictable on various scales - next time will be the same as last time - and this bias is what causes us to predict and perceive/segment current experience based on past experience.
I highly doubt we have any intrinsic bias towards perceiving things as following a story template, since our DNA has been shaped by nature, not stories. The major bias we do have, encoded in the way that our brain works, is just that nature is largely predictable on various scales - next time will be the same as last time - and this bias is what causes us to predict and perceive/segment current experience based on past experience.
>our DNA has been shaped by nature, not stories.
Interesting point, I believe the opposite. Or, let's say, that stories have much more impact that DNA on our behaviour/thinking models.
Religion, money, appartenance to a tribe outside of immediate family, all of that are stories that we adhere to. Hell, look at kamikazes : a group of people willingly destroying themselves (and therefore, their DNA) for the perceived well-being of a larger imaginary group, "their countrymen".
No, I believe animals can and do predict their environment, but we differ because we can adhere to a layer of information that is on top of what we can observe : call it collective subconscious or myths, but this is information that helps us do more.
Religion, money, appartenance to a tribe outside of immediate family, all of that are stories that we adhere to. Hell, look at kamikazes : a group of people willingly destroying themselves (and therefore, their DNA) for the perceived well-being of a larger imaginary group, "their countrymen".
No, I believe animals can and do predict their environment, but we differ because we can adhere to a layer of information that is on top of what we can observe : call it collective subconscious or myths, but this is information that helps us do more.
> Or, let's say, that stories have much more impact that DNA on our behaviour/thinking models
FWIW I think we agree - we don't have a genetic bias to perceive everything according to a cultural story template, but, having been exposed to enough of the genre we'll naturally be predicting/perceiving that in contexts where that is expected.
Note that there are many differing storytelling structures, so this really has to be learnt/cultural.
https://blooloop.com/theme-park/opinion/western-and-eastern-...
FWIW I think we agree - we don't have a genetic bias to perceive everything according to a cultural story template, but, having been exposed to enough of the genre we'll naturally be predicting/perceiving that in contexts where that is expected.
Note that there are many differing storytelling structures, so this really has to be learnt/cultural.
https://blooloop.com/theme-park/opinion/western-and-eastern-...
This sounds quite interesting even from a non-AI/machine learning perspective (as a lot of posts are discussing that).
I'd say it's a quite important lesson in UI/UX design, and interfaces generally. As per the article, our brains are primed to:
> actively constructs event boundaries based on internal priorities rather than passively responding to environmental cues
Explains why ads effectivity is low, why a lot of users miss obvious cues, and why UI design is so hard. It's something a lot of professionals know intuitively and through anecdotal evidence.
It is quite interesting to see research dig deeper into it, and possibly research/develop better "levers" to pull human attention more efficiently - essentially make us remember things. Priming was long understood to help, and that's primarily from observation/empiricism. Deeper insights into how the brain itself handles this could be game changers.
I'd say it's a quite important lesson in UI/UX design, and interfaces generally. As per the article, our brains are primed to:
> actively constructs event boundaries based on internal priorities rather than passively responding to environmental cues
Explains why ads effectivity is low, why a lot of users miss obvious cues, and why UI design is so hard. It's something a lot of professionals know intuitively and through anecdotal evidence.
It is quite interesting to see research dig deeper into it, and possibly research/develop better "levers" to pull human attention more efficiently - essentially make us remember things. Priming was long understood to help, and that's primarily from observation/empiricism. Deeper insights into how the brain itself handles this could be game changers.
Outside of a direct connection into the brain, doesn’t it seem a bit unlikely that we ever discover some sort of psychological method of achieving significantly better attention grabbing for individuals or (harder yet) groups than what we’ve already got?
The stuff my cartoon addled mind can picture is akin to brainwashing with a black and white spinning spiral. That or extensive, repeated exposure to certain stimuli, clockwork orange style.
Better priming seems like the best we could hope to achieve, in a sense, outside of things we’d probably be better off not getting into?
The stuff my cartoon addled mind can picture is akin to brainwashing with a black and white spinning spiral. That or extensive, repeated exposure to certain stimuli, clockwork orange style.
Better priming seems like the best we could hope to achieve, in a sense, outside of things we’d probably be better off not getting into?
We have direct access to people's visual cortex and audio processing with handsets. Folks are receiving a stream of data tailored specifically to their life and experiences. It's pretty direct while still being indirect.
A simple example in legacy media is with Coca Cola. The ads show good experiences and attempt to anchor those emotions to real life events, and then the tag line Enjoy. So your enjoyment is tagged with having a Coke. Relatively straight forward.
These days, and this is still an emerging technology. Ads can be built and constructed on a per user basis. So rather than generalizing, you can synthetically anchor ideas onto individual real life emotions. And then at the right time have the systems massage in the idea of compulsively making a purchase. So while not strictly black and white spinning spiral. It's more interception at a particularly vulnerable moment. At least in my observations.
A simple example in legacy media is with Coca Cola. The ads show good experiences and attempt to anchor those emotions to real life events, and then the tag line Enjoy. So your enjoyment is tagged with having a Coke. Relatively straight forward.
These days, and this is still an emerging technology. Ads can be built and constructed on a per user basis. So rather than generalizing, you can synthetically anchor ideas onto individual real life emotions. And then at the right time have the systems massage in the idea of compulsively making a purchase. So while not strictly black and white spinning spiral. It's more interception at a particularly vulnerable moment. At least in my observations.
Not an expert, but it seems the Holy Grail would be to make an advertisement relevant to the activity the person is currently doing, or things they are thinking about. At least then there's a better chance they'd remember it, if they in fact remember the thing at all. Like a tool that recommends a better tool when you try to do it for a job it's not intended for. I always wish I had a better chop saw when I'm using a circle saw for a too-large post, but when I see ads for chop saws I ignore them.
This is probably why there's this enduring trope about going to the hardware store and getting stuck for hours and walking out with too much stuff. You're already in the project mode and there to buy things you need. Very easy to grab just one more thing. Like, why is hobby lobby still a thing?
This is probably why there's this enduring trope about going to the hardware store and getting stuck for hours and walking out with too much stuff. You're already in the project mode and there to buy things you need. Very easy to grab just one more thing. Like, why is hobby lobby still a thing?
>research/develop better "levers" to pull human attention more efficiently -
Please God no. We've already pasted every surface on the planet with ads, no imagine not being able to ignore that crap. Sellers and propagandists would fill the world with more bullshit.
Please God no. We've already pasted every surface on the planet with ads, no imagine not being able to ignore that crap. Sellers and propagandists would fill the world with more bullshit.
So many upvotes but very few comments.
My feeling is that people are interested in the topic per se but struggle with the takeaway from this paper.
I have tried to read the article and also skimmed the original paper, but could not summarize any of it if you asked me now.
My feeling is that people are interested in the topic per se but struggle with the takeaway from this paper.
I have tried to read the article and also skimmed the original paper, but could not summarize any of it if you asked me now.
So what I got (but I don't really know what I am talking about)
When thinking about a story (or a sequence of events) we can parse it in different ways.
We may think about the changes in time/location:
-------
1 he went to the store
2. then went to gas station
3. then went home
4. the next day he woke up.
---------
Or you could think of the emotional changes:
---------
1. he was concerned about being unemployed.
2. then at the gas station he got a call saying he got the job and he starts tomorrow.
3. He is nervous about his first day of work.
------
With fmri we can detect these context shifts.
The thing the paper adds is that by prompting the user to pay attention to 'emotions' or 'location' it affects where these segmentation changes occur in the fmri results.
When thinking about a story (or a sequence of events) we can parse it in different ways.
We may think about the changes in time/location:
-------
1 he went to the store
2. then went to gas station
3. then went home
4. the next day he woke up.
---------
Or you could think of the emotional changes:
---------
1. he was concerned about being unemployed.
2. then at the gas station he got a call saying he got the job and he starts tomorrow.
3. He is nervous about his first day of work.
------
With fmri we can detect these context shifts.
The thing the paper adds is that by prompting the user to pay attention to 'emotions' or 'location' it affects where these segmentation changes occur in the fmri results.
Ok interesting, thanks.
In storytelling these are called outer and inner journey respectively.
In storytelling these are called outer and inner journey respectively.
Also called the fabula and syzuhet!
The "graphical abstract" at the start of the linked article seems to be the intended takeaway.
It seems to be a somewhat predictable consequence of the fact that perception appears to work by us predicting what we're seeing/experiencing, with sensory input merely guiding/correcting those predictions. This is also related to us mostly only seeing/remembering what we're focused on (i.e. focused on predicting).
So, if we're predicting/focusing on an episodic experience fitting some sequential "template" (e.g. restaurant or proposal), then that's how we'll perceive it and segment/memorize it.
It seems to be a somewhat predictable consequence of the fact that perception appears to work by us predicting what we're seeing/experiencing, with sensory input merely guiding/correcting those predictions. This is also related to us mostly only seeing/remembering what we're focused on (i.e. focused on predicting).
So, if we're predicting/focusing on an episodic experience fitting some sequential "template" (e.g. restaurant or proposal), then that's how we'll perceive it and segment/memorize it.
You're absolutely right—this topic is fascinating but complex, which might explain why people are engaging with the idea but struggling with the takeaway. One way to think about the paper is that it extends the chunking model, which is essential not only for UX design but also for understanding how people perceive and organize the world around them.
How This Extends the Chunking Model
1) Dynamic, Real-Time Chunking: Traditional chunking models focus on discrete, often static information (like remembering a phone number or words). This study shows how the brain applies a similar principle to continuous, dynamic experiences—segmenting life into "mental chapters" as events unfold.
2)Neural Foundations: By identifying the specific brain areas (hippocampus and prefrontal cortex) responsible for marking event boundaries, it adds a biological layer to the chunking model. It’s not just a cognitive strategy—it’s a neural process tied to memory formation and retrieval.
3) Application to UX Design: In UX, understanding event boundaries can inform how we design user journeys. For example, breaking a process (like signing up for a service) into clear steps with defined "boundaries" helps users perceive the flow and remember their progress. Similarly, designing interfaces to reflect natural event segmentation (e.g., transitions between scenes in a video or steps in an onboarding flow) aligns with how people mentally organize experiences.
4) Understanding and Communication:
Beyond UX, this model shows why clear, structured narratives are critical for teaching, storytelling, or even summarizing a paper. Without clear boundaries, information gets lost in the noise. Potential Hypotheses for Altered States:
It also hints at why psychedelics, which might blur these event boundaries, lead to a sense of timelessness or interconnectedness. This could extend into therapeutic applications or understanding atypical cognition.
Why This Matters for Understanding Things When we fail to structure information with clear boundaries, it becomes harder to process or remember—perhaps like your experience skimming the article. This study offers a roadmap for how we can improve communication and design to better align with our brain's natural segmentation processes.
How This Extends the Chunking Model
1) Dynamic, Real-Time Chunking: Traditional chunking models focus on discrete, often static information (like remembering a phone number or words). This study shows how the brain applies a similar principle to continuous, dynamic experiences—segmenting life into "mental chapters" as events unfold.
2)Neural Foundations: By identifying the specific brain areas (hippocampus and prefrontal cortex) responsible for marking event boundaries, it adds a biological layer to the chunking model. It’s not just a cognitive strategy—it’s a neural process tied to memory formation and retrieval.
3) Application to UX Design: In UX, understanding event boundaries can inform how we design user journeys. For example, breaking a process (like signing up for a service) into clear steps with defined "boundaries" helps users perceive the flow and remember their progress. Similarly, designing interfaces to reflect natural event segmentation (e.g., transitions between scenes in a video or steps in an onboarding flow) aligns with how people mentally organize experiences.
4) Understanding and Communication:
Beyond UX, this model shows why clear, structured narratives are critical for teaching, storytelling, or even summarizing a paper. Without clear boundaries, information gets lost in the noise. Potential Hypotheses for Altered States:
It also hints at why psychedelics, which might blur these event boundaries, lead to a sense of timelessness or interconnectedness. This could extend into therapeutic applications or understanding atypical cognition.
Why This Matters for Understanding Things When we fail to structure information with clear boundaries, it becomes harder to process or remember—perhaps like your experience skimming the article. This study offers a roadmap for how we can improve communication and design to better align with our brain's natural segmentation processes.
Really interesting is that current LLMs don’t explicitly use chunking for storage; they rely on distributed representations across parameters. However, their self-attention mechanisms and sequence processing mimic chunking during runtime, creating dynamic "chunks" of context.
I’m at my limit, wondering if future models incorporating explicit chunking for better memory, scalability, and efficiency could truly take them to the next level.
I’m at my limit, wondering if future models incorporating explicit chunking for better memory, scalability, and efficiency could truly take them to the next level.
There’s an interesting podcast episode of Lex Fridman with Charan Ranganath (memory researcher) in case people are looking for more on the topic
I came to a similar conclusion independently, and my main takeaway was that it’s advantageous to move every 3-5 years.
Just the simple act of being in a new place helps segment your memories better, and thus moving helps you feel like you have lived longer.
Just the simple act of being in a new place helps segment your memories better, and thus moving helps you feel like you have lived longer.
original study - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42421683
This reminds me of the emerging description of conscious function from Daniel Bor's book The Ravenous Brain. In this interpretation the mind is constantly trying to interpret sensory data as intent driven actions from differentiated actors. This makes available critical information about threats and possible targets and so on.
Interesting.
Reminds me of the book "The Mind is Flat" by Nick Charter who says that the mind is constantly improvising.
Reminds me of the book "The Mind is Flat" by Nick Charter who says that the mind is constantly improvising.
I wonder if this is the same for people who haven't grown up with linear media (books with chapters, shows with episodes/chapters, albums with songs etc)
I always think of the WEIRD people nuance when reading about these kinds of findings. Is the study cohort
- Western
- Educated
- Independent
- Rich
- Democratic
?
I always think of the WEIRD people nuance when reading about these kinds of findings. Is the study cohort
- Western
- Educated
- Independent
- Rich
- Democratic
?
IOW Minsky's frames and scripts, later fleshed out by Roger Schank, but in an fMRI context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_(artificial_intelligence...
Before the recent LLM distraction, I thought that (frames, scripts, et al; not fMRI) was the one true path.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_(artificial_intelligence...
Before the recent LLM distraction, I thought that (frames, scripts, et al; not fMRI) was the one true path.
Please fix the title.
As with anything generalized about humans, some will do it and some will not. And a few will do something completely different.
[deleted]
I hate these studies. The title is obviously false, the study obviously could not demonstrate the claim the title makes.
Can we please stop asking people something while looking at their brain "activities"? It is not helpful at all, it generates exactly zero knowledge.
This is like trying to figure out how the weather works by throwing scraps of paper into the air and tracing how the wind is throwing them around.
Can we please stop asking people something while looking at their brain "activities"? It is not helpful at all, it generates exactly zero knowledge.
This is like trying to figure out how the weather works by throwing scraps of paper into the air and tracing how the wind is throwing them around.
If you take everything literally then everything is wrong. All models are wrong but some are useful. (And wasn't that essentially the plot of twister?)
There is no model. It is just an observation that in March more often then not the scraps thrown into the wind move in an 8 like shape.
Even supposing this finding replicates, it shows essentially nothing. It definitely doesn't show anything about the brain creating "chapters".
Even supposing this finding replicates, it shows essentially nothing. It definitely doesn't show anything about the brain creating "chapters".
The article and this discussion uses a lot of "scare quotes". Those are approximations / models. The use of the world "Chapters" isn't meant to be taken literally, it is instead meant to convey that the temporal data is chunked, probably approximated by a small set of the brain, and cached. The fact that I'm using more precise language doesn't change the fact that those are also models.
What you describe (throwing leaves to the wind) is observations. If someone were to say "The leaves swirl in figure 8 in the autumn" that is a model (autumn->figure8) that can be tested and proven/disproven. It's not useful, but it's a model of the world (autumn causes figure 8 swirls).
You can disagree that it's useful, but sorry, it's a model of the brain that is testable and refineable - look for clusters of neurons (for some def of clustering) that is responsible for storing temporal events with a clear start/stop. I'm not an expert, but probably the methods (which cause some consternation for you perhaps?) are wishy washy b/c we don't have a great way of probing the brain - we can't just throw brain cells into the air and watch them make figure 8s. That complexity and noisy input signal does not change the fact that they are proposing a model and measuring a noisy output signal to see if the model is validated or not. (or maybe model came after, in this case, but it's still testable)
What you describe (throwing leaves to the wind) is observations. If someone were to say "The leaves swirl in figure 8 in the autumn" that is a model (autumn->figure8) that can be tested and proven/disproven. It's not useful, but it's a model of the world (autumn causes figure 8 swirls).
You can disagree that it's useful, but sorry, it's a model of the brain that is testable and refineable - look for clusters of neurons (for some def of clustering) that is responsible for storing temporal events with a clear start/stop. I'm not an expert, but probably the methods (which cause some consternation for you perhaps?) are wishy washy b/c we don't have a great way of probing the brain - we can't just throw brain cells into the air and watch them make figure 8s. That complexity and noisy input signal does not change the fact that they are proposing a model and measuring a noisy output signal to see if the model is validated or not. (or maybe model came after, in this case, but it's still testable)
And now, AI LLMs have a way to prioritise what's important and organise their memory (context window) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42411409