Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Schematic of study design. Participants viewed clips from unfamiliar TV sitcoms that were divided into two parts. Top row shows the example order of stimuli (e.g., S1, show 1; S2, show 2). Blue designates LC pairs of part 1 and part 2 clips; orange designates pairs of HC clips. Participants viewed a set of 5 part 1 clips followed by a set of 5 corresponding part 2 clips presented in random order. Ten of the part 1 clips had comprehensible speech, whereas the other 10 had unintelligible speech, created by spectrally rotating the audio. Clips were counterbalanced across participants in a within-subjects design (see middle and bottom rows). All main analyses were on the part 2 clips, which were identical across conditions and differed only in whether participants had knowledge of the preceding (part 1) dialogue (HC condition) or did not (LC condition).
- Figure 2.
Subjective memory ratings were better for the HC videos. Left column shows results from subjective measures in experiment 1, and right column shows subjective measures in experiment 2. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
- Figure 3.
Participants remembered the HC videos better. We show that free-recall accuracy was higher for the HC videos compared with the LC videos. Participants in experiment 2 showed better memory, tested with open-ended memory questions, for the HC videos compared with the LC videos. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
- Figure 4.
Semantic consistency is higher among recall of HC videos. A, A PCA projection in 2 dimensions of the semantic vectors that represent all participants’ correct free-recall responses for a single video. Semantic consistency for each video was calculated within each condition. The larger center dots are the condition average semantic patterns for the video based on the free-recall responses. Lines toward the center are for illustrative purposes. B, We calculated the average spread of scores for each video under each condition. One data point in the bar graph represented the average spread of responses across participants watching a video in one condition (e.g., average spread in orange points in A). Semantic consistency was on average higher for the HC videos. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. ***p < 0.001.
- Figure 5.
Intersubject correlations. A, The weight matrix (General ISC) tests for video-specific time course similarity across participants. Each cell represents the correlation between subjects’ time course for a particular video with the average time course of all remaining participants for a particular video. The diagonal represents correlations between time courses for the same videos. The off-diagonal represents temporal correlations between mismatching videos within the same run. B, Brain map from video-specific analysis, which shows extended synchronization across the brain for people watching the same videos. C, Weight matrix that tests for the time course similarity across the same videos, depending on their prior knowledge. D, Brain map showing how time course synchronicity was modulated by prior knowledge. Both brain maps show clusters significant at FWE p < 0.05 after permutation testing.
In this issue
