ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Subcategory vs category fluency: Items and networks in healthy young adults and simulation with a large language model.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Category fluency tasks involve producing words constrained by a semantic field (animals). Subcategory fluency involves producing words from categories that are semantically related to a superordinate category but form a restricted set of items (farm animals). Here, we study whether people produce different patterns of words in category versus subcategory fluency by looking at differences in the total number of words produced, the properties of the words produced (e.g., frequency) and how people group words together (clusters/switches and network metrics). Forty-eight Dutch-speaking university students responded to three category fluency tasks (animals, foods, transport) and three subcategory fluency tasks (farm animals, fruits, bike parts). Also, we queried a large language model (LLM) to provide responses for 50 "pseudo-participants" for the same six categories. People in category (versus subcategory) tasks produced more words; words of higher frequency, with fewer orthographic and phonological neighbors, and shorter in length. They also produced fewer cluster switches and bigger clusters. The category and subcategory networks had different structure (e.g., number of nodes, edges, clustering coefficient). With the LLM we simulated the results regarding word properties and cluster size, but found differences regarding correct words, number of switches, and overlapping clusters between foods and fruit fluency. The differences between category and subcategory fluency may stem from differences in mental search in the lexico-semantic system. However, category and subcategory fluency tasks may be different tasks altogether. The LLM simulation provides novel insights (e.g., how words relate, task-order effects) and suggests caution when used to understand human fluency data.
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.