Predicting the Recall of Narrative and Expository Texts Through an Experimental-Computational Approach: Testing Two Cognitive Models and the Effectiveness of a Revised Model

Zakeri, Hamed; Bahrami-Khorshid, Sahar; Danaye Tous, Maryam; Ghayoomi, Masoud

doi:10.22059/jolr.2026.403361.666943

Predicting the Recall of Narrative and Expository Texts Through an Experimental-Computational Approach: Testing Two Cognitive Models and the Effectiveness of a Revised Model

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Hamed Zakeri ¹

Sahar Bahrami-Khorshid ²

Maryam Danaye Tous ³

Masoud Ghayoomi ⁴

¹ Candidate of ‘Cognitive Sciences-Linguistics’, Department of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

² Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

³ Associate Professor, Department of English language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.

⁴ Associate Professor, Department of Dialectology, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran

10.22059/jolr.2026.403361.666943

Abstract

Text comprehension and recall are among the most fundamental cognitive processes, and explaining their mechanisms can be effective both in the development of cognitive science theories and in the design of intelligent computational systems. Written texts generally fall into two main categories - narrative and expository - each activating different patterns of mental processing: narratives, relying on temporality, causality, and character-centeredness, are closely related to episodic memory, while expository texts, with their logical and conceptual organization, are more dependent on semantic memory. The present study, with the aim of examining these two text types simultaneously, empirically tested two well-known models of text understanding - the Landscape model and the Event-Indexing model - and, alongside them, evaluated the effectiveness of a revised model designed on the basis of integrating conceptual activation, event structuring, and positional weighting. For this purpose, three Persian texts with different structures were selected. Fifty-one ninth-grade students, after reading the texts, participated in a free recall task, and their memory outputs were recorded and coded sentence by sentence. The three cognitive models were then implemented, and their normalized outputs (0–1) were compared with the actual data of the participants. Statistical analyses included accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score, along with Pearson correlation and paired t-tests. The findings showed that the Landscape model was more effective in representing key concepts and semantic relations, whereas the Event-Indexing model better captured the temporal and causal coherence of narrative texts. However, neither model alone was sufficient to cover the full pattern of human recall. In contrast, the revised model, by integrating the three cognitive mechanisms and incorporating the serial position effect, provided the highest level of correlation with behavioral data and demonstrated a significant advantage over the two classical models in terms of the F1 measure

Keywords

Text recall

Landscape model

Event-Indexing model

Revised model

Computational text analysis

Subjects

Click subject name to see related articles.

Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The Atomic Components of Thought. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829-839.

Bojanowski, P., Grave, E., Joulin, A., & Mikolov, T. (2017). Enriching word vectors with subword information. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5, 135-146.

Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., ... & Amodei, D. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165.

Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Harvard University Press.

Chen, Z., Yu, W., Liu, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2021). Integrating cognitive science with natural language processing: A case study of memory modeling. Cognitive Computation, 13, 123–138.
Darwish, K., et al. (2021). Explainability in natural language processing. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 5-12.

Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint.

Ebbinghaus, H. (1885/2013). Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology. Translated by H.A. Ruger & C.E. Bussenius. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Hasson, U., Nastase, S. A., & Goldstein, A. (2020). Direct fit to nature: An evolutionary perspective on biological and artificial neural networks. Neuron, 105(3), 416-434.

Hupkes, D., et al. (2020). Compositionality decomposed: How do neural networks generalize? Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 67, 757-795.

Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge University Press.

Mao, J., et al. (2019). Neuro-symbolic concept learner: Interpreting scenes, words, and sentences from natural supervision. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).

Mar, R. A., Djikic, M., & Oatley, K. (2021). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(3), 595–613.
Murdock, B. B. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(5), 482-488.

Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. D. (2014). GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 1532-1543.

Radvansky, G. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2011). Event perception. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(6), 608-620.

Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(5), 206-215.

Tenney, I., Das, D., & Pavlick, E. (2019). BERT rediscovers the classical NLP pipeline. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4593-4601.

Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of Episodic Memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The Landscape Model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of a memory representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The Construction of Mental Representations During Reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

van den Broek, P., Risden, K., Fletcher, C. R., & Thurlow, R. (1996). A “landscape” view of reading: Fluctuating patterns of activation and the construction of a stable memory representation. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of Understanding Text (pp. 165-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39(2-3), 299–316.

Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. Academic Press.

Vaswani, A., et al. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 30, 5998-6008.

Yeari, M., & van den Broek, P. (2016). A computational modeling of semantic knowledge in reading comprehension: Integrating the landscape model with latent semantic analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 880–896.

Zwaan, R. A., Langston, M. C., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science, 6(5), 292-297.

Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185.