ArticleMemory & cognition2023
Investigating the network structure of domain-specific knowledge using the semantic fluency task.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Knowledge Structure and Form Shape Scientific Divergent Thinking: Evidence from Semantic Network Analysis and the Scientific Divergent Application Task.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Article
- Early Autonomic Burden in Prodromal Parkinson's Disease Predicts Cognitive Impairment.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2026Article
- Lexical retrieval in fluent and nonfluent aphasia: a network analysis of verbal fluency data.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Mapping the Memory Structure of High-Knowledge Students: A Longitudinal Semantic Network Analysis.Journal of Intelligence · 2024Article
- Cognitive Networks for Knowledge Modeling: A Gentle Introduction for Data- and Cognitive Scientists.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive scienceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cognitive scientists have a long-standing interest in quantifying the structure of semantic memory. Here, we investigate whether a commonly used paradigm to study the structure of semantic memory, the semantic fluency task, as well as computational methods from network science could be leveraged to explore the underlying knowledge structures of academic disciplines such as psychology or biology. To compare the knowledge representations of individuals with relatively different levels of expertise in academic subjects, undergraduate students (i.e., experts) and preuniversity high school students (i.e., novices) completed a semantic fluency task with cue words corresponding to general semantic categories (i.e., animals, fruits) and specific academic domains (e.g., psychology, biology). Network analyses of their fluency networks found that both domain-general and domain-specific semantic networks of undergraduates were more efficiently connected and less modular than the semantic networks of high school students. Our results provide an initial proof-of-concept that the semantic fluency task could be used by educators and cognitive scientists to study the representation of more specific domains of knowledge, potentially providing new ways of quantifying the nature of expert cognitive representations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.