Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40788884›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Measuring individual semantic networks: A simulation study.

Samuel Aeschbach, Rui Mata, Dirk U Wulff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Samuel AeschbachCenter for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6167-4901
Rui MataCenter for Cognitive and Decision Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1679-906X
Dirk U WulffCenter for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurately capturing individual differences in semantic networks is fundamental to advancing our mechanistic understanding of semantic memory. Past empirical attempts to construct individual-level semantic networks from behavioral paradigms may be limited by data constraints. To assess these limitations and propose improved designs for the measurement of individual semantic networks, we conducted a recovery simulation investigating the psychometric properties underlying estimates of individual semantic networks obtained from two different behavioral paradigms: free associations and relatedness judgment tasks. Our results show that successful inference of semantic networks is achievable, but they also highlight critical challenges. Estimates of absolute network characteristics are severely biased, such that comparisons between behavioral paradigms and different design configurations are often not meaningful. However, comparisons within a given paradigm and design configuration can be accurate and generalizable when based on designs with moderate numbers of cues, moderate numbers of responses, and cue sets including diverse words. Ultimately, our results provide insights that help evaluate past findings on the structure of semantic networks and design new studies capable of more reliably revealing individual differences in semantic networks.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationSemanticsHumansIndividualityMemory

Identifiers

PMID40788884
PMCPMC12338769

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.