ArticlePsychological review2023
Accumulating evidence for myriad alternatives: Modeling the generation of free association.
Article in Psychological review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A cognitive multiplex network approach to investigate mental navigation and predict high-level cognition.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- How gist and association affect false memory: False recognition and gist rating norms.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- The affective gradient hypothesis: an affect-centered account of motivated behavior.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2024Review
- The role of alpha oscillations in free- and goal-directed semantic associations.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- Latent mechanisms of language disorganization relate to specific dimensions of psychopathology.Nature. Mental health · 2024Article
- Accumulating evidence for myriad alternatives: Modeling the generation of free association.Psychological review · 2023Article
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
Abstract
The associative manner by which thoughts follow one another has intrigued scholars for decades. The process by which an association is generated in response to a cue can be explained by classic models of semantic processing through distinct computational mechanisms. Distributed attractor networks implement rich-get-richer dynamics and assume that stronger associations can be reached with fewer steps. Conversely, spreading activation models assume that a cue distributes its activation, in parallel, to all associations at a constant rate. Despite these models' huge influence, their intractability together with the unconstrained nature of free association have restricted their few previous uses to qualitative predictions. To test these computational mechanisms quantitatively, we conceptualize free association as the product of internal evidence accumulation and generate predictions concerning the speed and strength of people's associations. To this end, we first develop a novel approach to mapping the personalized space of words from which an individual chooses an association to a given cue. We then use state-of-the-art evidence accumulation models to demonstrate the function of rich-get-richer dynamics on the one hand and of stochasticity in the rate of spreading activation on the other hand, in preventing an exceedingly slow resolution of the competition among myriad potential associations. Furthermore, whereas our results uniformly indicate that stronger associations require less evidence, only in combination with rich-get-richer dynamics does this explain why weak associations are slow yet prevalent. We discuss implications for models of semantic processing and evidence accumulation and offer recommendations for practical applications and individual-differences research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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.