Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 59 references

The Emotion-Memory Link: Do Memorability Annotations Matter for Intelligent Systems?

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Observer-rated group emotion shows no reliable link to which conversation moments people remember.

desk verdict A genuinely new negative result about third-party group affect annotations and conversational memorability, but the abstract overstates 'random chance' and the all-three-experiments rule is arbitrary; worth refereeing after revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14084 v1 pith:TY7G4UN4 submitted 2025-07-18 cs.HC cs.AI

Maria Tsfasman , Ramin Ghorbani , Catholijn M. Jonker , Bernd Dudzik This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords conversationalmemorygroupaffectaffectivecomputingmemorabilityannotationthird-partytime-continuousnullhypothesissimulationmeetingsupport
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to test whether emotional annotations produced by outside observers—specifically continuous ratings of a group's pleasure, arousal, and intensity—can serve as proxies for what the group will remember from a conversation. Using recorded multiparty meeting sessions with third-party affect labels and participant-reported memorable moments, the authors compare the affect-memory alignment with three synthetic null baselines, including temporally shuffled affect traces. Since no metric passes all three comparison experiments, they conclude that the observed relationship cannot be reliably distinguished from random chance. If correct, this means systems that use observed group emotion as a stand-in for memorability are building on a shaky assumption.

What carries the argument

The comparison machinery is a three-part null-hypothesis simulation. For each session, synthetic affect time series are generated under three different null assumptions: uniform random values over the full scale, random values restricted to the range observed in that session, and the real affect sequence shuffled in 15-second blocks, which destroys temporal alignment while keeping the exact distribution. The alignment of each synthetic series with the real memory labels is measured with four metrics: PATE F1 and PATE (proximity-aware evaluation that tolerates small timing shifts), Euclidean distance, and dynamic time warping distance (DTW), which allows stretches and shifts in time. The real data's metric values are then compared against the 10,000-iteration null distributions. The load-bearing rule is that the null is rejected only if the same metric shows significance in all three experiments; because Experiment 3 produced no significant results, the claim of a reliable affect-memory relationship fails.

What would settle it

The central claim would be overturned by a temporal-shuffle test in which a real affect-memory metric—for any of arousal, valence, or intensity—falls outside the shuffled null distribution at the Bonferroni-corrected threshold; a natural first check is to re-run Experiment 3 with 1-second or 5-second shuffle windows, since the 15-second block shuffle may preserve within-block structure that could mask a true relationship.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is negative: the relationship between perceived group emotions (valence, arousal, and intensity) and group memorability, measured through continuous time-based annotations, is not reliable enough to distinguish from chance. The evidence is three simulation experiments. Experiments 1 and 2, which generate random affect data with minimal assumptions or with the observed range of values, mostly show that the real affect-memory alignment is unlikely to be random. Experiment 3, which shuffles the actual affect annotations in 15-second windows and thereby preserves every property of the data except temporal alignment with memory, produces no significant metric for any affect dimension. Under the paper's pre-specified decision rule—reject the null only if a metric is significant across all three experiments—the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The authors therefore conclude that the significant effects in the first two experiments were artifacts of distributional differences, not evidence of affect tracking memory, and that third-party group affect annotations are not dependable proxies for conversational memorability.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that shuffling affect annotations in 15-second blocks, together with the PATE, Euclidean, and DTW metrics, is powerful enough to expose a genuine temporally aligned affect-memory relationship; if the shuffle keeps too much structure or the metrics are too weak, the all-insignificant Experiment 3 could be a false negative.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Meeting support, summarization, and memory-augmentation systems should stop treating observed group emotion as a stand-in for what users will remember; direct memorability signals such as recall-based annotations are needed.
  • Emotion-recognition pipelines that use third-party continuous affect annotations as relevance labels should re-validate their ground truth against first-person or self-report measures.
  • The well-documented emotion-memory link from cognitive science does not automatically transfer to the annotation practices used in affect-recognition technology—third-party, continuous, group-level labels capture something different from experienced emotion.
  • Time-continuous affect features may still be useful for other purposes, but using them as a proxy for long-term event relevance in conversational AI cannot be justified by this relationship.
  • The non-significant temporal-shuffle experiment implies that what made Experiments 1 and 2 look significant was the distribution of affect values, not their alignment in time with memorable moments.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This null result may be specific to the group-level, third-party operationalization: individual-level first-person affect annotations could still predict individual memorability, and the paper itself flags this as future work; if so, the failure is about aggregation and annotation perspective, not about the emotion-memory link.
  • Because the affect labels were collected in 15-second blocks and Experiment 3 shuffles whole blocks, any genuine relationship at sub-15-second timescales would be invisible to this analysis; a finer-grained shuffle test could change the outcome.
  • The group memorability index aggregates individual recall reports, which may dilute the signal: if only one participant remembers a moment, the group index treats it as memorable for the whole group, adding noise that could weaken an existing affect-memory association.
  • The paper's rejection rule—requiring significance in all three experiments—is conservative; a study designed around the temporal-shuffle null alone might be more decisive for the temporal-alignment question.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper empirically tests whether time-continuous third-party group affect annotations (valence, arousal, and intensity) align with group memorability annotations in multi-party conversations, using the MeMo corpus and the affect annotations of Raj Prabhu et al. Three permutation experiments generate synthetic affect data under increasingly restrictive null assumptions: uniform random values, values sampled from each session's observed range, and temporally shuffled 15-second blocks of the real affect annotations. Four metrics (PATE F1, PATE, Euclidean distance, and DTW) compare observed affect-memory alignment against these null distributions. The authors report that no metric is significant across all three experiments and conclude that the observed relationship between affect and memorability annotations cannot be reliably distinguished from random chance, implying that such affect annotations are not reliable proxies for conversational memorability.

Significance. The question is timely and the study fills a real gap: it operationalizes both affect and memorability as time-continuous, group-level constructs in an ecologically valid conversational setting, which is closer to how affective computing systems are actually built than the static, individual-level paradigms in prior work. The permutation-based comparison framework is a principled way to interpret otherwise uninterpretable similarity metrics, and the authors are honest about reporting null results. If the findings withstand scrutiny, they serve as an important caution against assuming that third-party affect annotations capture memory-relevant information. The strength of the contribution, however, depends critically on whether the all-insignificant Experiment 3 is a true absence of temporal alignment or an artifact of low power and an arbitrary decision rule.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2 vs. §5.2, §6.1.1, Appendix 1] The number of sessions is reported inconsistently: §4.2 states the subset consists of '30 conversational sessions' and '12 groups with 42 participants', while §5.2, §6.1.1, and Appendix 1 repeatedly refer to '35 videos' or '35 sessions'. This is load-bearing because the width of the permutation null distribution and the statistical power of the tests depend directly on the number of sessions. The authors should correct the count throughout and state the exact number of sessions, groups, and participants actually used in each experiment.
  2. [§5.2] The decision rule that the null hypothesis can be rejected only if the p-value is significant across all three experiments is ad hoc and conflates three different null hypotheses (random values, range-matched random values, and temporally shuffled values). Requiring significance in all three is neither a standard overall test nor a test of any single scientific claim, and it makes the conclusion 'cannot be reliably distinguished from random chance' much stronger than the data support. The authors should either justify this conjunction rule from a pre-specified hypothesis or, preferably, designate Experiment 3 as the primary test of temporal alignment and report the corresponding effect sizes and confidence intervals.
  3. [§6.3, Table 1] The all-insignificant Experiment 3 may be a false negative caused by low statistical power rather than evidence of no temporally aligned affect-memory relationship. Shuffling 15-second blocks preserves the block-constant structure and the marginal distribution of the affect annotations, so the null distribution can be wide; with only about 30 sessions, a genuine effect concentrated in a subset of sessions could easily fall inside the null envelope. The paper does not report a power analysis, effect sizes, or confidence intervals for the observed statistics. The authors should provide these, and should discuss the sensitivity of the conclusion to the choice of 15-second blocks and to the four metrics.
  4. [Abstract, §7, §8] The abstract's phrasing that the affect-memory relationship 'cannot be reliably distinguished from what might be expected under random chance' overstates what the analysis shows. Experiments 1 and 2 mostly produced significant differences from uniform and range-matched random data; only the temporal-shuffle null of Experiment 3 was not rejected. A more accurate statement would be that the authors found no evidence of temporal alignment beyond what block-level shuffling of the affect annotations produces. The conclusion in §8 already contains the more careful qualifier 'within the scope of this dataset and methodology', and the abstract should be aligned with that qualifier.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.2] The sentence 'This selection resulted in 3 groups from the original MeMo corpus being exploded and the timestamps...' is unclear; 'exploded' appears to be a typo for 'excluded' or a similar intended word, and the subsequent group count of 12 should be reconciled with the mention of 3 groups.
  2. [§4.3.2 / §6.1.2] Section 4.3 states that intensity is binarized at a threshold of 4, which is not the mathematical midpoint of the intensity range, yet §6.1.2 describes the binarization as using 'the middle of Likert scales for each dimension of affect'; this should be clarified to avoid implying a uniform midpoint rule.
  3. [Appendix 2] The appendix contains typos such as 'Eucledian distance' in the figure captions and 'continuos' in §8; these should be corrected.
  4. [Table 1] The table caption says 'Green cells indicate significant p-values (p<0.004, Bonferroni correction), while uncolored cells are insignificant (p≤0.004)' but the two conditions in the caption are inconsistent; the second should read 'p>0.004'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports an empirical null result whose inputs are datasets and metrics, not conclusions.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain runs from the MeMo dataset and the affect annotations of Raj Prabhu et al. [22], through three simulation-based null experiments (Sections 5.2 and 6), to the conclusion that the observed affect-memory alignment cannot be reliably distinguished from chance. The conclusion is an outcome of the permutation testing procedure, not an input to it. The decision rule in Section 5.2 requires a metric to be significant across all three experiments before the null can be rejected; since no metric or affect dimension satisfies that rule, the paper reports non-rejection. This is a statistical inference, and the null distributions are generated from stated assumptions (uniform range, observed per-session range, and temporal block shuffling), none of which encode the paper's conclusion. The paper reuses data and tools from prior work with author overlap: the MeMo corpus [27], the conversational-memory baseline [47], the affect annotations [22], and the PATE metric [52]. These are self-citations, but they are not load-bearing in a circular way: the dataset and annotations are empirical resources used as inputs, and the PATE metric is a measurement procedure, not a source of the null result. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, and no equation that reduces to an input by construction. The most plausible concern is not circularity but statistical power: Experiment 3 shuffles 15-second affect blocks and finds all metrics insignificant, which could reflect low sensitivity rather than absence of temporal alignment, and the manuscript inconsistently reports 30 sessions in Section 4.2 but 35 sessions in Section 5.2 and the Appendix. Those are validity and reporting concerns, not circular reasoning. The paper's central claim therefore has independent empirical content relative to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. Its central claim rests on dataset-specific operationalizations and the validity of the permutation nulls.

free parameters (1)
  • Intensity binarization threshold = 4
    Used for PATE F1 analysis on intensity. The threshold is set to the intensity value at midpoint arousal (4) and neutral valence (0), not the statistical midpoint of the intensity range (approximately 5.66). This hand-set threshold affects the binary intensity labels and the resulting PATE F1 significance.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Block shuffling affect at 15-second intervals produces a valid null distribution for temporal alignment
    Experiment 3 shuffles 15-second windows. This assumes any genuine affect-memory relationship operates at scales of 15 seconds or larger; a relationship operating within a 15-second window would survive shuffling and the test would have no power.
  • domain assumption Median aggregation across raters yields a valid group-level affect time series
    Section 4.4.2 aggregates annotators' ratings using the median per second. This assumes the median captures the group affect signal without distortion from annotator disagreement or outliers.
  • standard math The PATE metric with its standard tolerance parameter is appropriate for this comparison
    PATE is adopted from [52] and used as 'the standard PATE measure'. The paper does not specify the tolerance window value, so it relies on the prior publication's parameterization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Emotion-Memory Link: Do Memorability Annotations Matter for Intelligent Systems?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TY7G4UN4

@misc{pith2026250714084,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Emotion-Memory Link: Do Memorability Annotations Matter for Intelligent Systems?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TY7G4UN4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14084}
}
read the original abstract

Humans have a selective memory, remembering relevant episodes and forgetting the less relevant information. Possessing awareness of event memorability for a user could help intelligent systems in more accurate user modelling, especially for such applications as meeting support systems, memory augmentation, and meeting summarisation. Emotion recognition has been widely studied, since emotions are thought to signal moments of high personal relevance to users. The emotional experience of situations and their memorability have traditionally been considered to be closely tied to one another: moments that are experienced as highly emotional are considered to also be highly memorable. This relationship suggests that emotional annotations could serve as proxies for memorability. However, existing emotion recognition systems rely heavily on third-party annotations, which may not accurately represent the first-person experience of emotional relevance and memorability. This is why, in this study, we empirically examine the relationship between perceived group emotions (Pleasure-Arousal) and group memorability in the context of conversational interactions. Our investigation involves continuous time-based annotations of both emotions and memorability in dynamic, unstructured group settings, approximating conditions of real-world conversational AI applications such as online meeting support systems. Our results show that the observed relationship between affect and memorability annotations cannot be reliably distinguished from what might be expected under random chance. We discuss the implications of this surprising finding for the development and applications of Affective Computing technology. In addition, we contextualise our findings in broader discourses in the Affective Computing and point out important targets for future research efforts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14084 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of perceived vs experienced emotion and the object of this study (shown with blue dashed arrow). The states with observable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the comparison procedure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. DTW distance results for all the experiments (each row of plots shows data for a different experiment) across the three affect dimensions - [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PATE F1 results for all the experiments (each row of plots shows data for a different experiment) across the three affect dimensions - Arousal (blue), Valence (green), and Intensity (grey). The Colored histogram showed the distribution of averaged PATE F1 values under …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PATE results for all the experiments (each row of plots shows data for a different experiment) across the three affect dimensions - Arousal (blue), Valence (green), Intensity (grey). The Colored histogram showed the distribution of averaged PATE values under the null h…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Eucledian distance results for all the experiments (each row of plots shows data for a different experiment) across the three affect dimensions - Arousal (blue), Valence (green), Intensity (grey). The Colored histogram showed the distribution of averaged Euclidean dist…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Dynamics of Collective Group Affect: Group-level Annotations and the Multimodal Modeling of Convergence and Divergence

    N. R. Prabhu, M. Tsfasman, C. Oertel, T. Gerkmann, and N. Lehmann-Willenbrock, “Dynamics of collective group affect: Group-level annotations and the multimodal modeling of JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 11 convergence and divergence,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2409.08578

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    A tale of three functions: the self–reported uses of autobiographical memory,

    S. Bluck, N. Alea, T. Habermas, and D. C. Rubin, “A tale of three functions: the self–reported uses of autobiographical memory,” Social Cognition, vol. 23, pp. 91–117, 2005

    work page 2005

  3. [2]

    Rotshtein, Ed., Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience, 2nd edition

    P . Rotshtein, Ed., Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience, 2nd edition. Netherlands: Elsevier, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    A review of affec- tive computing: From unimodal analysis to multimodal fusion,

    S. Poria, E. Cambria, R. Bajpai, and A. Hussain, “A review of affec- tive computing: From unimodal analysis to multimodal fusion,” Inf Fus, vol. 37, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [4]

    Making lasting memories: Remembering the significant,

    J. L. McGaugh, “Making lasting memories: Remembering the significant,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 110, no. supplement 2, pp. 10 402–10 407, Jun. 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [5]

    Interaction between the amygdala and the medial temporal lobe memory system predicts better memory for emotional events,

    F. Dolcos, K. S. LaBar, and R. Cabeza, “Interaction between the amygdala and the medial temporal lobe memory system predicts better memory for emotional events,” Neuron, vol. 42, no. 5, p. 855–863, Jun. 2004

    work page 2004

  7. [6]

    Modulation of memory storage,

    L. Cahill and J. L. McGaugh, “Modulation of memory storage,” Current Opinion in Neurobiology , vol. 6, no. 2, p. 237–242, Apr. 1996. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S095943889680078X

    work page 1996

  8. [7]

    Short-term memory for scenes with affective content,

    V . Maljkovic and P . Martini, “Short-term memory for scenes with affective content,” Journal of Vision , vol. 5, no. 3, p. 6, Mar. 2005. [Online]. Available: http://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?doi= 10.1167/5.3.6

    work page doi:10.1167/5.3.6 2005

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

    Emotional context modulates subsequent memory effect,

    S. Erk, M. Kiefer, J. o. Grothe, A. P . Wunderlich, M. Spitzer, and H. Walter, “Emotional context modulates subsequent memory effect,” NeuroImage, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 439–447, Feb. 2003. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S1053811902000150

    2003

  2. [9]

    How arousal modulates memory: Disentangling the effects of attention and retention,

    T. Sharot and E. A. Phelps, “How arousal modulates memory: Disentangling the effects of attention and retention,” Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience , vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 294–306, Sep

  3. [10]

    Effects of emotional valence and arousal on recollective and nonrecollective recall

    C. F. A. Gomes, C. J. Brainerd, and L. M. Stein, “Effects of emotional valence and arousal on recollective and nonrecollective recall.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 39, no. 3, p. 663–677, May 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.a...

    2013 doi

  4. [11]

    The effect of relevance appraisal on the emotional response

    L. Olteanu, S. Golani, B. Eitam, and A. Kron, “The effect of relevance appraisal on the emotional response.” Emotion, vol. 19, no. 4, p. 715–725, Jun. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/emo0000473

    2019 doi

  5. [12]

    Dopamine and adaptive memory,

    D. Shohamy and R. A. Adcock, “Dopamine and adaptive memory,” T rends in Cognitive Sciences , vol. 14, no. 10, p. 464–472, Oct. 2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S1364661310001865

    2010

  6. [13]

    Interacting with Emotion and Memory Enabled Virtual Characters and Social Robots,

    Z. Kasap and N. Magnenat-Thalmann, “Interacting with Emotion and Memory Enabled Virtual Characters and Social Robots,” in Modeling Machine Emotions for Realizing Intelligence: Foundations and Applications , ser. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, T. Nishida, L. C. Jai...

    2010 doi

  7. [14]

    Affective episodic memory system for virtual creatures: The first step of emotion-oriented memory,

    L. Martin, J.-H. Rosales, K. Jaime, and F. F. Ramos, “Affective episodic memory system for virtual creatures: The first step of emotion-oriented memory,” Computational Intelligence and Neuro- science, vol. 2021, 2021

    2021

  8. [15]

    Towards More Human-Like Episodic Memory for More Human-Like Agents,

    C. Brom and J. Lukavsk ´y, “Towards More Human-Like Episodic Memory for More Human-Like Agents,” in Intelligent Virtual Agents, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Z. Ruttkay, M. Kipp, A. Nijholt, and H. H. Vilhj ´almsson, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009, pp. 484–485

    2009

  9. [16]

    Towards episodic memory-based long-term affective interaction with a human- like robot,

    Z. Kasap and N. Magnenat-Thalmann, “Towards episodic memory-based long-term affective interaction with a human- like robot,” in 19th International Symposium in Robot and Human Interactive Communication . IEEE, Sep. 2010, pp. 452–457, iSSN: 1944-9445. [Online]. Available: http:...

    2010

  10. [17]

    Emotion and memory model for social robots: a reinforcement learning based behaviour selection,

    M. Ahmad, Y. Gao, F. Alnajjar, S. Shahid, and O. Mubin, “Emotion and memory model for social robots: a reinforcement learning based behaviour selection,” Behaviour & Information T echnology , vol. 41, pp. 3210–3236, 2021

    2021

  11. [18]

    Emotion in reinforcement learning agents and robots: a survey,

    T. Moerland, J. Broekens, and C. Jonker, “Emotion in reinforcement learning agents and robots: a survey,” Machine Learning , vol. 107, pp. 443–480, 2017

    2017

  12. [19]

    Emotion as a multicomponent process: A model and some cross-cultural data,

    K. R. Scherer, “Emotion as a multicomponent process: A model and some cross-cultural data,” Review of Personality & Social Psy- chology, vol. 5, p. 37–63, 1984

    1984

  13. [20]

    Bridging emotion theory and neurobiology through dynamic systems modeling,

    M. Lewis, “Bridging emotion theory and neurobiology through dynamic systems modeling,” The Behavioral and brain sciences , vol. 28, pp. 169–94; discussion 194, 05 2005

    2005

  14. [21]

    A review and meta-analysis of multimodal affect detection systems,

    S. K. D’mello and J. Kory, “A review and meta-analysis of multimodal affect detection systems,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 47, no. 3, feb 2015. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2682899

    2015

  15. [23]

    Correcting Time-Continuous Emo- tional Labels by Modeling the Reaction Lag of Evaluators,

    S. Mariooryad and C. Busso, “Correcting Time-Continuous Emo- tional Labels by Modeling the Reaction Lag of Evaluators,” IEEE T ransactions on Affective Computing , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 97–108, Apr. 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    RCEA: Real-time, Continuous Emotion Annotation for Collecting Precise Mobile Video Ground Truth Labels,

    T. Zhang, A. El Ali, C. Wang, A. Hanjalic, and P . Cesar, “RCEA: Real-time, Continuous Emotion Annotation for Collecting Precise Mobile Video Ground Truth Labels,” in Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . Honolulu HI USA: ACM, Apr. 2020...

    2020

  17. [25]

    Emotional intensity predicts autobiographical memory experience,

    J. M. Talarico, K. S. LaBar, and D. C. Rubin, “Emotional intensity predicts autobiographical memory experience,” Memory & Cogni- tion, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 1118–1132, Oct. 2004

    2004

  18. [26]

    A Valid Self-Report is Never Late, Nor is it Early: On Considering the

    B. Dudzik and J. Broekens, “A Valid Self-Report is Never Late, Nor is it Early: On Considering the ”Right” Temporal Distance for Assessing Emotional Experience,” arXiv, Jan. 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Introducing memo: A multimodal dataset for memory modelling in multiparty conversations,

    M. Tsfasman, B. Dudzik, K. Fenech, A. Lorincz, C. M. Jonker, and C. Oertel, “Introducing memo: A multimodal dataset for memory modelling in multiparty conversations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13715, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Meetingcoach: An intelligent dashboard for supporting effective & inclusive meetings,

    S. Samrose, D. McDuff, R. Sim, J. Suh, K. Rowan, J. Hernandez, S. Rintel, K. Moynihan, and M. Czerwinski, “Meetingcoach: An intelligent dashboard for supporting effective & inclusive meetings,” in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , s...

    2021

  21. [29]

    Group affect recognition: Completed databases and smart uses,

    A. Triantafyllou and G. A. Tsihrintzis, “Group affect recognition: Completed databases and smart uses,” in Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on E-Education, E-Business and E-T echnology, ser. ICEBT ’19. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery,...

    2019

  22. [30]

    Supporting groups’ emotion and motivation regulation during collaborative learning,

    H. J ¨arvenoja, S. J ¨arvel¨a, and J. Malmberg, “Supporting groups’ emotion and motivation regulation during collaborative learning,” Learning and Instruction , vol. 70, p. 101090, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Can emotions be truly group level? evidence regarding four conceptual criteria,

    E. R. Smith, C. R. Seger, and D. M. Mackie, “Can emotions be truly group level? evidence regarding four conceptual criteria,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , vol. 93, no. 3, p. 431–446, Sep. 2007

    2007

  24. [32]

    Automatic emotion recognition for groups: A review,

    E. A. Veltmeijer, C. Gerritsen, and K. V . Hindriks, “Automatic emotion recognition for groups: A review,” IEEE T ransactions on Affective Computing , vol. 14, pp. 89–107, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:234225582

    2023

  25. [33]

    Group affect in complex decision-making: Theory and formalisms from psychol- ogy and computer science,

    A. Chohra, K. Madani, and C. N. van der Wal, “Group affect in complex decision-making: Theory and formalisms from psychol- ogy and computer science,” in Computational Collective Intelligence , N. T. Nguyen, E. Pimenidis, Z. Khan, and B. Trawi ´nski, Eds. Cham: Springer Interna...

    2018

  26. [34]

    Actor-Observer Differences in Conversational Memory,

    L. Stafford, V . R. Waldron, and L. L. Infield, “Actor-Observer Differences in Conversational Memory,” Human Communication Research, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 590–611, Jun. 1989. [Online]. Available: https://academic.oup.com/hcr/article/15/4/590-611/4584140

    1989

  27. [35]

    Participants’ and observers’ memory for conversational behavior,

    W. L. Benoit, P . J. Benoit, and J. Wilkie, “Participants’ and observers’ memory for conversational behavior,” Southern Communication Journal , vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 139–154, Mar. 1996. [Online]. Available: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. 1080/10417949609373007

    1996

  28. [36]

    Memory for conversation and the development of common ground,

    G. L. McKinley, S. Brown-Schmidt, and A. S. Benjamin, “Memory for conversation and the development of common ground,” Memory & Cognition , vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 1281–1294, Nov. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0730-3

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    ”i said what?

    J. A. Samp and L. R. Humphreys, “”i said what?” partner familiarity, resistance, and the accuracy of conversational recall.” Communication Monographs , vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 561–581, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701716610

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    Capturing egocentric biases in reference reuse during collaborative dialogue,

    D. Knutsen and L. Le Bigot, “Capturing egocentric biases in reference reuse during collaborative dialogue,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1590–1599, Dec 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0620-7

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    The role of interpersonal competence in memory for conversation,

    J. B. Miller and P . A. de Winstanley, “The role of interpersonal competence in memory for conversation,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 78–89, 2002. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202281007

    2002 doi

  32. [40]

    Linguistic features of spontaneous speech predict conversational recall,

    E. Diachek and S. Brown-Schmidt, “Linguistic features of spontaneous speech predict conversational recall,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , Jan. 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02440-w

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Group affect: Its influence on individual and group outcomes,

    S. G. Barsade and D. E. Gibson, “Group affect: Its influence on individual and group outcomes,” Current Directions in Psychological Science , vol. 21, no. 2, p. 119–123, Apr. 2012. [Online]. Available: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/ 0963721412438352

    2012

  34. [42]

    Interactive affective sharing versus non-interactive affective sharing in work groups: Comparative effects of group affect on work group performance and dynamics,

    A. Klep, B. M. Wisse, and H. van der Flier, “Interactive affective sharing versus non-interactive affective sharing in work groups: Comparative effects of group affect on work group performance and dynamics,” European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 41, pp. 312–323, 2011. [...

    2011

  35. [43]

    Does group cohesion foster self-directed learning for medical students? a longitudinal study,

    S.-Y. Kim and E. Yang, “Does group cohesion foster self-directed learning for medical students? a longitudinal study,” BMC Medical Education, vol. 20, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    VideoMem: Constructing, Analyzing, Predicting Short-Term and Long-Term Video Memorability,

    R. Cohendet, C.-H. Demarty, N. Duong, and M. Engilberge, “VideoMem: Constructing, Analyzing, Predicting Short-Term and Long-Term Video Memorability,” in 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) . Seoul, Korea (South): IEEE, Oct. 2019, pp. 2531–2540. [On...

    2019

  37. [45]

    Multimodal Memorability: Modeling Effects of Seman- tics and Decay on Video Memorability,

    A. Newman, C. Fosco, V . Casser, A. Lee, B. McNamara, and A. Oliva, “Multimodal Memorability: Modeling Effects of Seman- tics and Decay on Video Memorability,” in Computer Vision – ECCV 2020 , ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, A. Vedaldi, H. Bischof, T. Brox, and J.-M. F...

    2020

  38. [46]

    Experiences from the mediaeval predicting media memorability task,

    A. Garc ´ıa Seco de Herrera, M. G. Constantin, C.-H. Demarty, C. Fosco, S. Halder, G. Healy, B. Ionescu, A. Matran-Fernandez, A. F. Smeaton, M. Sultana, and L. Sweeney, “Experiences from the mediaeval predicting media memorability task,” in The NeurIPS MemARI Workshop proceedi...

    2022

  39. [47]

    Towards creating a conversational memory for long-term meeting support: predicting memorable moments in multi-party conversations through eye-gaze,

    M. Tsfasman, K. Fenech, M. Tarvirdians, A. Lorincz, C. Jonker, and C. Oertel, “Towards creating a conversational memory for long-term meeting support: predicting memorable moments in multi-party conversations through eye-gaze,” in Proceedings of the 2022 ICMI. Bengaluru India:...

    2022

  40. [48]

    A circumplex model of affect,

    J. A. Russell, “A circumplex model of affect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , vol. 39, no. 6, p. 1161–1178, 1980

    1980

  41. [49]

    The valence and the functions of autobiographical memories: Does intensity matter?

    T. Wolf, J. Pociunaite, S. Hoehne, and D. Zimprich, “The valence and the functions of autobiographical memories: Does intensity matter?” Consciousness and Cognition , vol. 91, p. 103119, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Pleasure-arousal theory and the intensity of emotions

    R. Reisenzein, “Pleasure-arousal theory and the intensity of emotions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , vol. 67, no. 3, p. 525–539, Sep. 1994. [Online]. Available: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.525

    1994 doi

  43. [51]

    Goto and A

    N. Goto and A. Schaefer, Emotional Intensity . Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 1–9. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8 509-1

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    Pate: Proximity- aware time series anomaly evaluation,

    R. Ghorbani, M. J. T. Reinders, and D. M. J. Tax, “Pate: Proximity- aware time series anomaly evaluation,” 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Tag and capture: how salient experiences target and rescue nearby events in memory,

    J. E. Dunsmoor, V . P . Murty, D. Clewett, E. A. Phelps, and L. Davachi, “Tag and capture: how salient experiences target and rescue nearby events in memory,” T rends in Cognitive Sciences , vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 782–795, 2022. [Online]. Available: https:// www.sciencedirect.com...

    2022

  46. [54]

    Event segmentation and the temporal compression of experience in episodic memory,

    O. Jeunehomme and A. D’Argembeau, “Event segmentation and the temporal compression of experience in episodic memory,” Psychological Research , vol. 84, no. 2, p. 481–490, Mar. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1047-y

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, pp

    Muller, Dynamic Time Warping . Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 69–84. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74048-3 4

    2007 doi

  48. [56]

    Suppression and expression as distinct emotion-regulation processes in daily interactions: Lon- gitudinal and meta-analyses,

    L. Cameron and N. Overall, “Suppression and expression as distinct emotion-regulation processes in daily interactions: Lon- gitudinal and meta-analyses,” Emotion, vol. 18, p. 465–480, 2018

    2018

  49. [57]

    Are dyads really groups?

    R. L. Moreland, “Are dyads really groups?” Small Group Research, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 251–267, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409358618

    2010 doi

  50. [58]

    Exchange and cohesion in dyads and triads: A test of simmel’s hypothesis

    J. Yoon, S. R. Thye, and E. Lawler, “Exchange and cohesion in dyads and triads: A test of simmel’s hypothesis.” Social science research, vol. 42 6, pp. 1457–66, 2013. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 12 APPENDIX 1: S IMULATION PROCEDURE Experiment 1 In...

    2013

  51. [2004]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.4.3.294

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.4.3.294

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.