HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Psychol Aging. 2023 March ; 38(2): 87–102. doi:10.1037/pag0000721.

Age differences in semantic network structure: acquiring

knowledge shapes semantic memory
Abigail L. Cosgrove1, Roger E. Beaty1, Michele T. Diaz1, Yoed N. Kenett2
1Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, USA
2Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology,
Israel
Author Manuscript

Abstract
Computational research suggests that semantic memory, operationalized as semantic memory
networks, undergoes age-related changes. Previous work suggests that concepts in older adults’
semantic memory networks are more separated, more segregated, and less connected to each
other. However, cognitive network research often relies on group averages (e.g., young vs.
older adults), and it remains unclear if individual differences influence age-related disparities in
language production abilities. Here, we analyze the properties of younger and older participants’
individual-based semantic memory networks, based on their semantic relatedness judgments.
We related individual-based network measures—clustering coefficient (connectivity), global
efficiency, and modularity (structure)—to language production (verbal fluency) and vocabulary
knowledge. Similar to previous findings, we found significant age effects: clustering coefficient
Author Manuscript

and global efficiency were lower, and modularity was higher, for older adults. Furthermore,
vocabulary knowledge was significantly related to the semantic memory network measures:
corresponding with the age effects, clustering coefficient and global efficiency had a negative
relationship, while modularity had a positive relationship, with vocabulary knowledge. More
generally, vocabulary knowledge significantly increased with age, which may reflect the critical
role that the accumulation of knowledge within semantic memory has on its structure. These
results highlight the impact of diverse life experiences on older adults’ semantic memory and
demonstrate the importance of accounting for individual differences in the aging mental lexicon.

Keywords
aging; semantic memory; semantic networks; individual differences; vocabulary
Author Manuscript

Introduction
Healthy aging is associated with general decline across a variety of cognitive domains,
including memory, processing speed, executive functioning, and language production ability
(Burke & Shafto, 2004, 2008; Salthouse, 2010). Life experiences, conceptual knowledge,
and vocabulary however, tend to increase with age (Park et al., 2002; Verhaeghen,

Corresponding authors: Abigail Cosgrove and Yoed Kenett.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 2

2003). While some studies claim that age-enriched semantic information leads to greater
Author Manuscript

interference (Buchler et al., 2007; Ramscar et al., 2017), other studies show that increased
vocabulary is associated with lower error rates (Gollan & Goldrick, 2019) or with
more lexically diverse output (Rabaglia & Salthouse, 2011), suggesting that vocabulary
knowledge supports language production (Kavé & Halamish, 2015; Shafto et al., 2017).
Moreover, there is evidence that semantic storage (i.e., vocabulary) positively interacts
with other aspects of semantics, such as selection demands (i.e., executive functioning and
language production (e.g., Burke & Shafto, 2008; Shafto et al., 2017). However, studies like
these often do not focus on the overall structure of the lexicon.

Networks can be used to represent the structure of conceptual representations (Castro et al.,
2020; Hills & Kenett, 2022; Siew et al., 2019). These computationally-modeled semantic
memory networks allow the analysis of more than just word-word relations, but rather the
interactions between one and many words, as well as overall structural characteristics of the
Author Manuscript

network, such as efficiency. Semantic memory network analyses have been utilized across
various research areas – creativity, language acquisition, clinical populations, and in healthy
aging (Castro et al., 2020; Kenett & Faust, 2019b; Steyvers & Tenenbaum, 2005; Wulff et
al., 2019). Previous work that focused on semantic memory networks and aging suggests
that with increased age, semantic memory becomes less efficient, organized, and connected
(Cosgrove et al., 2021; Dubossarsky et al., 2017; Kenett et al., 2021; Wulff et al., 2018,
2019, 2022).

While these studies contributed seminal knowledge about the effect of age on semantic
memory network structure, they largely focused on group level differences (but see Wulff
et al., 2022) which precludes examining how language production abilities relate to network
measures. Constructing semantic memory networks separately for each individual affords
Author Manuscript

an opportunity to relate semantic memory network structure to individual differences

in cognition. This individualized approach is particularly relevant in aging research
as variability in cognitive performance increases with age and semantic knowledge is
a function of personal experience. This leads to our primary research questions: are
individually constructed semantic memory network measures related to language abilities,
and are age-related differences in semantic memory networks related to age-related
differences in vocabulary or language production?

The Aging Mental Lexicon

Cognitive aging is associated with declines in domain-general mechanisms including slower
processing speeds, declines in working memory capacity, and decreased inhibitory control
(Cabeza et al., 2018; Salthouse, 2010). Aging also affects specific cognitive processes such
Author Manuscript

as language production, resulting in age-related difficulties in word retrieval (Burke &

Shafto, 2008; Peelle, 2019). Though, these age-related word retrieval declines weaken in
tasks where older adults have the opportunity to utilize their rich vocabularies (Gollan &
Goldrick, 2019). Moreover, increased vocabulary knowledge can explain reduced error rates,
faster reading times, and greater self-corrections for older adults (Gollan & Goldrick, 2019).
Higher vocabulary scores have also been associated with fewer lexical retrieval difficulties
(i.e., Tip of the Tongue states; TOTs) for adults in general, and larger vocabularies among

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 3

older adults do not increase retrieval failures (Shafto et al., 2017). These findings are
Author Manuscript

consistent with studies showing increased vocabulary knowledge allows older adults to
produce more diverse and sophisticated discourse (Rabaglia & Salthouse, 2011) and more
unique word associations (Burke & Peters, 1986). Burke and Peters (1986) concluded that
verbal ability but not age, influenced semantic memory structure and semantic encoding.

Although older adults have larger vocabularies, a wealth of behavioral studies using a variety
of tasks such as lexical decision, sentence and paragraph comprehension, and pronunciation
tasks, have shown that older and younger adults have similar patterns of semantic priming,
suggesting that spreading activation occurs similarly in younger and older adults (e.g.,
Howard 1981, 1983; Burke, White, & Peters, 1987; Laver & Burke, 1993; Madden et
al., 1993; Balota & Duchek, 1988, 1989). Moreover, older adults produce similar word
associations (Burke & Peters, 1987) and show similar frequency effects (e.g., Allen et
al., 1993; Cohen-Shikora & Balota, 2016) compared to younger adults, again highlighting
Author Manuscript

general similarities in older and younger adults’ semantic memory.

While the general pattern of semantic priming and word associations remains intact with
age, older adults often have slower response times and activation may take longer to
build (e.g., Balota & Duchek, 1988). In general, previous work has attributed differences
in response time on semantic priming tasks to age-related slowing of sensory, motor, or
decisional processes. Critically, these studies suggest that semantic retrieval mechanisms
– like spreading activation – are preserved in older adulthood (Balota & Duchek, 1988;
Madden et al., 1993). This complement of results (i.e., intact semantic priming patterns,
coupled with slower responses) may be related to the role of automatic versus attentional
aspects of semantic priming in relation to aging (e.g., Burke et al., 1987; Laver & Burke,
1993; Balota et al., 1992). Initially, a word may automatically yield a spread of activation
Author Manuscript

through the semantic memory network reaching other semantically related words and
increasing their resting activation level (Klimesch, 1987; Kroll & Klimesch, 1992). This
automatic process benefits visual encoding and decreases response time to a subsequent
target word. In addition to such automatic processes, individuals may also engage in more
controlled processes (e.g., creating a list of expected associations), thereby increasing their
level of activation through attentional processes. Further, these processes may interact as
suggested by a semantic priming study by Balota and colleagues (1992). Overall, these two
mechanisms (automatic and attentional spreading activation) can work together to boost
word recognition (Laver & Burke, 1993), and highlight the influence of both automatic
semantic processes, which remain intact with age (Balota et al., 1992), and reliance on other
cognitive abilities, which may decline with age.
Author Manuscript

Semantic Memory Network Development Across the Lifespan

Some of the earliest studies on semantic memory were characterized in terms of spreading
activation processes (Collins & Loftus, 1975) in which words are connected in terms of
semantic similarity and activation spreads between closely related concepts (Balota &
Duchek, 1988, 1991; Kenett et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2020). Network science builds
off these early network conceptualizations by providing a set of tools that mathematically
quantify the characteristics of a system (Sporns, 2011). For example, measures like path

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 4

length and global efficiency, which assess the exchange of information across the number
Author Manuscript

of links (i.e., edges) between words, are conceptually similar to the concept of spreading
activation. For example, previous research on semantic memory has shown that the path
length in semantic networks corresponds to whether participants’ judge two concepts being
related to each other (Kenett et al., 2017; Kumar, Balota, & Steyvers, 2020). Global
efficiency of semantic memory networks has been related to individual differences in
verbal creativity, which involves connecting weakly related concepts (He et al., 2020).
Other network measures characterize the structure of the system. For example, clustering
coefficient refers to the extent to which neighbors of a node will be neighbors of each
other (i.e., a neighbor is a node i that is connected through an edge to node j). A higher
clustering coefficient indicates a more interconnected semantic network (Siew et al., 2019).
Modularity estimates how a network is partitioned into smaller communities (Fortunato,
2010; Newman, 2006). Such subcommunities can be thought of as subcategories in a
Author Manuscript

semantic network (e.g., pets in the ‘animals’ category). Previous research has shown that
modularity in semantic memory networks is inversely related to a network’s flexibility and
that this measure typically increases with age (Cosgrove et al., 2021; Kenett et al., 2018,
2021).

Given the dynamic nature of semantic memory, studies have focused on network structure
changes across development (Steyvers & Tenenbaum, 2005). This research suggests
structural network changes both throughout child language acquisition (Hills et al., 2009a,
Hills et al., 2009b) as well as during associative learning tasks in young adults (Mak
& Twitchell, 2020). Since people continue to acquire knowledge and vocabulary across
the lifespan, semantic memory structure may also continuously change with age (Bieth et
al., 2021; Kenett & Thompson-Schill, 2020; Wulff et al., 2019; Yee & Thompson-Schill,
2016). One study assessed these lexical changes across the lifespan (i.e., 10–84 years)
Author Manuscript

by mapping free association data from 8,000 participants (Dubossarsky et al., 2017). Free
association tasks typically present participants with a target word and ask them to produce a
continuous stream of thought associations for one minute (Dubossarsky et al., 2017). Early
life networks were characterized by greater rigidity in structure, as measured by increases
in average shortest path length, and lowered clustering coefficient, among other network
measures (Dubossarsky et al., 2017). As age increased this pattern reverses – resulting in
more sparsely connected networks. The authors concluded that the aging results are not an
inverse of early life, but rather a reflection on the interaction between the accumulation
of knowledge through life experiences, and declines in cognitive control processes that
affect memory retrieval (Dubossarsky et al., 2017). Two recent studies used verbal
fluency data to construct semantic networks, replicating and extending previous findings
based on free association data (Cosgrove et al., 2021; Wulff et al., 2018). Overall, this
Author Manuscript

work suggested that younger adults’ semantic memory networks have greater connections
between words, less segregation of sub-communities, and greater flexibility for more
efficient semantic processing (Cosgrove et al., 2021; Wulff et al., 2018). Critically, Wulff
and colleagues’ simulation of aging networks suggested that a single underlying mechanism,
likely deterioration, is responsible for the structural differences between younger and older
adults (Wulff et al., 2018). Complementing these findings, Cosgrove and colleagues (2021)
conducted a percolation analysis which quantifies the robustness of the semantic memory

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 5

networks to simulated “attacks” (i.e., removing links in the network). They found that
Author Manuscript

older adults’ semantic memory networks broke down faster compared to younger adults’
networks, suggesting diminished flexibility in older adults’ networks, despite the stability of
semantic memory across the lifespan (Cosgrove et al., 2021). These age-related differences
in the structure and robustness of semantic memory networks could then lead to the often-
observed age-related differences in retrieval difficulty or tip-of-the-tongue states.

Individual Differences in Semantic Memory Network Structure

Although many studies have examined group differences in network structure and others
have emphasized the importance of individual differences in network structure relevant for
memory retrieval and creative thinking (Kenett & Faust, 2019b; Siew et al., 2019; Zemla &
Austerweil, 2018), few studies have looked at individual network differences in aging (Wulff
et al., 2018, 2019, 2022). In one such study, Wulff and colleagues calculated individual
Author Manuscript

semantic networks using semantic similarity ratings (Wulff et al., 2018). Though these
network measures were consistent with group findings (Cosgrove et al., 2021; Dubossarsky
et al., 2017; Kenett et al., 2021; Wulff et al., 2019; Zortea et al., 2014), older adult semantic
memory networks were not as generalizable across individuals as younger semantic memory
networks. While they did not relate these structural differences to cognitive behavior,
the greater variance among older adults in the similarity ratings was likely related to
differences in life experiences and acquired knowledge (Wulff et al., 2018, 2019). Although
the researchers conclude that the individual networks were less powerful in capturing the
linguistic response patterns than the aggregated semantic memory network, this study had a
relatively small sample size (n=8, Wulff et al., 2022). Since there were only four younger
adults and four older adults, the individual-based variation in network structure that accounts
for behavioral performance on language related tasks may not have been sufficient to reveal
Author Manuscript

significant network effects.

Current Study
The present study examines the underlying mechanisms of age-related differences in
semantic memory. To build on previous group-level studies, we adopt an individual
differences approach which better captures age-related variability, allowing a direct link
between network measures and cognitive abilities. Previous research suggests that older
adults’ semantic memory networks are more separated, more segregated, and more variable
(Cosgrove et al., 2021; Dubossarsky et al., 2017; Kenett et al., 2021; Wulff et al., 2018,
2019). However, network research often relies on group averages, and it remains unclear if
individual-based semantic network measures influence language production abilities related
Author Manuscript

to aging. Prior work has shown that while individual-based semantic memory network
differences are similar to group level findings, older adult networks were more variable
and less generalizable across individuals (Wulff et al., 2018)—potentially due to greater
variability in life experiences and acquired knowledge in older adults. Moreover, several
studies that have examined individual-based network differences in older adults included
relatively small samples (Wulff et al., 2022).

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 6

Increased semantic memory network variability with age suggests that individual differences
Author Manuscript

may be a potentially important factor in cognitive aging, and previous work suggests that
this approach is both useful and possible (Kenett & Faust, 2019a; Wulff et al., 2019; Zemla
& Austerweil, 2018). Here we assessed individual-based semantic memory networks via
a semantic relatedness judgment task (RJT). Performance on semantic judgment tasks are
much more strongly influenced by meaning as the decision relies on semantic aspects of
the stimuli (Pexman et al., 2017; Pexman & Yap, 2018; Yap et al., 2012). Such relatedness
judgments can be used as a proxy for how concepts are organized and has been applied
across different languages and cultures (Benedek et al., 2017; He et al., 2020; Ovando-Tellez
et al., 2022). Thus, the RJT is well-suited to studying individual differences in the aging
lexicon (Wulff et al., 2022).

In addition, calculating individually based semantic memory networks allows us to compare

the structural network measures with each individual’s language ability. In order to assess
Author Manuscript

both language production and representation, we used verbal fluency and vocabulary tasks.
The verbal fluency task measures an individual’s production performance under a given
time constraint, while the untimed vocabulary assessment reflects their semantic store. We
hypothesized that individual differences in semantic network properties, as measured via
the RJT, will mimic group level findings, and would be mediated by age and language
abilities. Specifically, older adults’ semantic memory networks should be more segregated,
less connected, and less efficient compared to younger individuals, and these age-related
differences would weaken with better vocabulary knowledge and verbal fluency.

Methods
Transparency and Openness
Author Manuscript

The de-identified data on which this study’s results and conclusions are based are openly
accessible. The study design, hypotheses, and analytic plan were not preregistered.

Participants
Twenty-eight younger adults (18 – 30 years, M = 23.18 years old, SD = 3.93, females = 11,
males = 15, non-binary = 1, and 1 individual who preferred not to answer) and twenty-eight
older adults (60 – 80 years, M = 64.96 years old, SD = 3.94, females = 19, males = 9)
were recruited online through Prolific (https://prolific.co/). No information about race was
collected for this online study. Based on a post-hoc power analysis, as well as a prior aging
and semantic memory network study (Cosgrove et al., 2021), 56 participants should provide
greater than 80% power to detect a large sized effect in semantic memory organization
between the two age groups (p < .05). All participants reported no history of neurological
Author Manuscript

disorder or disease and were fluent English speakers. All participants who chose to take part
in these studies provided informed consent and were paid $10/hr for their participation. All
experimental procedures were approved by the Pennsylvania State University Institutional
Review Board as part of the Online Studies of Language Protocol STUDY00014804.

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 7

Verbal fluency task

Author Manuscript

Participants completed two commonly used categorical verbal fluency tasks – animals and
fruits & vegetables categories. For each of these categories, participants were presented with
the category (animals or fruits & vegetables) and were given one minute to type as many
members of each category that they could think of (Benton, 1968). Performance on the
verbal fluency task was calculated through the number of category correct responses. For our
analyses we combined the two categories since the two tasks were highly correlated, r = .74,
p < .001.

Vocabulary Knowledge Assessment

Participants also completed a vocabulary assessment which included two parts from the
ETS Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tasks: the Advanced Vocabulary Test II (18 items,
4 minutes) and the Extended Range Vocabulary Test (24 items, 6 minutes; Ekstrom &
Author Manuscript

Harman, 1976). Both tests included multiple choice questions that presented a target word
with four to five answer choices. Participants were asked to choose the word that best
described the target word. Performance on these tasks was measured as the sum of overall
accurate responses and these tasks were combined for analyses, r = .71, p < .001. In addition
to this crystallized intelligence measure, a fluid intelligence score was collected through the
Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT; Cattell & Cattell, 1960).

Relatedness Judgement Task

Semantic memory networks are represented by concepts (i.e., nodes) and the semantic
relatedness between them (i.e., edges). Semantic relatedness judgements are representative
of the semantic distance between concepts in a participant’s semantic memory network
(Kenett et al., 2017). Using a similar methodology to Benedek and colleagues (2017),
Author Manuscript

participants judged the relatedness of all possible pair combinations from a list of 28 words
(See Appendix A for the word list). The stimuli were chosen across 7 categories and are
all considered highly frequent, concrete, and have an early age of acquisition (Linguistic
features of the words are provided in Appendix B). The stimuli were chosen across several
categories so that they would correlate more with within category than across category.
There were no differences in lexical characteristics between each category (see Appendix
C). In addition, these categories (e.g., animals, furniture, tools, etc.) are relatively stable
across age and cohort effects as described in Castro et al., 2021.

The order of the word-pairs for each participant was randomized (378 pairs). The word
pairs were presented in the center of the screen with a continuous scale from 0–1 below
the words. The scale had a slider with ends labeled “unrelated” and “strongly related”. On
Author Manuscript

each trial, the slider was initially positioned in the middle of the scale (See Appendix D for
an example display). Participants were given the instruction to provide a quick, instinctive
judgement for the semantic relatedness of the word pair and to avoid over-analyzing the
relationship. Participants judged each unique pair once. The judgement units were measured
by a fraction of the segment’s width. Data was rounded to the tenth decimal place (i.e., 0.1)
before computing the semantic networks.

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 8

Network Estimation
Author Manuscript

For each participant, their semantic relatedness judgements were converted into a 28 ×
28 adjacency matrix of a weighted, undirected semantic memory network (Benedek et al.,
2017). Individual-based semantic memory networks were estimated for each participant. In
these estimated weighted undirected networks (WUN), all edges were kept in the network
and edges are weighted based on the judgements provided by each participant during the
task (Benedek et al., 2017). The benefit of this methodology is that it avoids any arbitrary
thresholding of edges for network filtering. This is critical for capturing the possible weaker
connections of semantic relationships in aging lexicons (He et al., 2020; Ovando-Tellez
et al., 2022). The relatedness judgement task allows us to create individual correlation
matrices that are used to calculate the semantic networks. Previous aggregated networks
combined participant responses to estimate one semantic memory network per age group
where there were only two sets of network measures for comparison (Cosgrove et al., 2021).
Author Manuscript

Our network metrics (e.g., modularity, clustering coefficient, and global efficiency) are
thus tailored to each individual. This, then allowed us to compare these network measures
to individual differences in vocabulary knowledge, verbal fluency performance, and fluid
intelligence.

Semantic Memory Network Measures

Analyses for the individual-based semantic memory network measures were calculated
using the Brain Connectivity Toolbox for MATLAB (Rubinov & Sporns, 2010). For each
individual’s semantic memory network, we examined the clustering coefficient, global
efficiency, and modularity (Newman, 2006; Sporns, 2011). We chose these network metrics
as they examine multiple levels of semantic memory organization and have been used in
previous aging network studies (e.g., node to node relationships, across entire network
Author Manuscript

relationships, Benedek et al., 2017; He et al., 2020; Ovando-Tellez et al., 2022). Clustering
Coefficient (CC) represents the connectedness of the neighbors of a node, and it influences
the flow of information through and around a node; more connections indicate a more
robust network (Sporns, 2011). Global Efficiency (EGlobal) takes the inverse of path length
– or the relatedness between any pair of nodes, averaged across the network (Sporns,
2011). Shorter path lengths indicate higher levels of efficiency and therefore the faster
information can travel across the network. Finally, modularity (Q) is the community or
grouping structure of nodes in the network (Fortunato, 2010; Newman, 2006).

Analyses
We ran independent sample t-tests to examine whether the individual-based semantic
memory network measures of CC, EGlobal, and Q differed between younger and older
Author Manuscript

adults. Then, collapsing across age groups, individual-based semantic memory network
measures of CC, EGlobal, and Q were compared to verbal fluency performance and
vocabulary knowledge via linear regression analysis. In addition, we ran mediation analyses
to assess whether including verbal fluency and vocabulary performance affected the age
effect on the individual-based semantic memory network measures of CC, EGlobal, and
Q. A few missing data points in the vocabulary extended task and the animals verbal
fluency task were imputed using the mice package in R (van Buren et al., 2011). The mice

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 9

package imputes missing data with plausible values calculated through stochastic regression
Author Manuscript

imputation with the complementing verbal fluency and vocabulary tasks. R script, regression
graphics, and imputed data can be found on OSF (https://osf.io/rh76p/).

Results
The average semantic relatedness between 28 concepts was 0.30 (SD = 0.13) for younger
adults and 0.18 (SD = 0.11) for older adults. Averaged across responses, younger adults
judged the concepts as more related than older adults t(56)= −3.94, p < .001. The standard
deviation and range of these judgement were not significantly different between age groups.
The semantic judgments with values of 0 were adjusted to be .01 because zero values
disproportionately affected some of the mathematical calculations.

To examine the relationship between individual-based semantic memory network properties

Author Manuscript

and language, individual-based semantic memory network measures of CC, EGlobal, and
Q were correlated with performance on a verbal fluency task and vocabulary knowledge.
An example of a younger and older adult semantic network is shown below (Figure 1).
See Appendix E for a visualization of the individual differences between all 56 semantic
memory network structures of younger and older individuals. In addition, correlation
matrices across all measures are reported separately for the younger and older adults in
Appendix F.

Similar to group level differences that have been observed by others (Cosgrove et al., 2021;
Dubossarsky et al., 2017), significant age effects were found between the individual-based
semantic memory network measures (Figure 2). Specifically, through independent sample
t-tests, we found that clustering coefficient was lower for older adults, t(54) = −2.07, p = .04,
global efficiency was lower for older adults, t(54) = −2.03, p = .047, and modularity was
Author Manuscript

higher for older adults, t(54) = 5.06, p < .001. Overall, the within-group variance for each
network measure was greater for older adults compared to younger individuals (Table 1).

Consistent with the aging literature, vocabulary knowledge was significantly greater for
older adults, t(54) = 4.29, p < .001. In addition, after a Levene’s test indicated homogeneity
of variances between the two age groups on the fluid intelligence measure, (F = .26, p = .
61), an independent sample t-tests showed that fluid intelligence scores were lower for older
adults, t(53) = −2.9, p = .005. Next, we examined the relation between the individual-based
semantic memory network measures and performance in the language tasks. Vocabulary was
significantly related to the individual-based semantic memory network measures (Figure
3). Mimicking the age effects, clustering coefficient, b = −0.005, t(54) = −3.13, p = .002,
and global efficiency, b = −0.006, t(54) = −2.64, p = .01, had a negative relationship with
Author Manuscript

vocabulary; while modularity, b = 0.006, t(54) = 2.87, p = .006, was positively related to
vocabulary knowledge. This finding indicates that vocabulary knowledge had a significant
effect on semantic memory network organization as measured by the RJT. However, these
individual-based semantic memory network measures of clustering coefficient (p = .95),
global efficiency (p = .41), and modularity (p = .71), did not significantly correlate with
language production ability as measured by the total number of verbal fluency responses.

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 10

There was also no significant difference in the total number of verbal fluency responses
Author Manuscript

produced across younger and older adults (p = .69).

In addition, a mediation analysis was run using the mediation package in R (Tingley et al.,
2014), to quantitively measure whether vocabulary knowledge mediated these age effects.
Adding vocabulary performance to the mediation analysis did not significantly change the
effect of age on the individual-based semantic memory network measures of EGlobal and Q.
The effect of age on clustering coefficient was partially mediated by vocabulary knowledge.
The regression coefficient between age group and clustering coefficient and the regression
coefficient between vocabulary and clustering coefficient was significant (Figure 4). The
indirect effect was (0.87)*(0.3) = −0.26. We tested the significance of this indirect effect
using bootstrapping procedures. Standardized indirect effects were computed for each of 500
bootstrapped samples, and the 95% confidence interval was computed by determining the
indirect effects at the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles. The bootstrapped standardized indirect
Author Manuscript

effect was −0.26, and the 95% confidence interval ranged from −0.593 to −0.07. Thus,
the indirect effect was statistically significant (p=.008). Verbal fluency did not mediate
associations between age and network measures (see Table 2 for more details). Since we did
not find a direct effect of age and verbal fluency responses, this result is not surprising.

Discussion
In the current study we examined the relation of individuals’ semantic memory networks,
vocabulary knowledge and language production, and how these relations vary across the
lifespan. The application of computational network science methodologies to cognition and
aging allows us to investigate these issues, advancing our understanding of the effect of
continued knowledge acquisition throughout the lifespan on individuals and how variations
Author Manuscript

in such processes relate to changes in ones’ semantic memory structure.

Semantic cognition comprises both overall conceptual knowledge, the control processes that
influence selection, and the interaction between these two mechanisms (Lambon Ralph et
al., 2017). Critically, how our semantic memory is organized can influence this interaction.
The emerging field of cognitive network science provides mathematical tools to quantify the
structural properties of semantic memory through network measures (Castro & Siew, 2020;
Hills & Kenett, 2022; Siew et al., 2019). These measures can be used to examine how words
are organized and retrieved both at a global network level as well as at a detailed word
level (Siew et al., 2019). The intersection of aging and semantics provides an excellent case
for examining differences in network structure, as vocabularies grow throughout adulthood,
thereby changing semantic memory organization (e.g., Burke & Shafto, 2008). Moreover,
cognitive network science research has shown age-related structural differences, suggesting
Author Manuscript

that semantic memory organization is less efficient, more segregated, and less interconnected
in older adults, compared to younger adults (Cosgrove et al., 2021; Dubossarsky et al.,
2017; Kenett et al., 2021; Wulff et al., 2018, 2019, 2022). Moreover, assessing individual
differences in semantic memory structure is particularly important among older adults who
often show increased variability. Yet, among the aging literature, the majority of studies
have examined group level differences (Wulff et al., 2019), raising the question of whether

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 11

individual variation in relevant language abilities, such as vocabulary knowledge and verbal
Author Manuscript

fluency, impacts the structure of aging semantic networks.

We found that individual network metrics significantly differed between younger and older
adults. In line with previous work, the semantic memory networks of older adults were
less efficient (lower global efficiency), less interconnected (lower clustering coefficient), and
more segregated (higher modularity) compared to younger adults. Interestingly, there was no
relationship between semantic memory network measures and verbal fluency performance,
but vocabulary knowledge significantly predicted semantic memory network measures,
suggesting that the ability to fluently retrieve knowledge from semantic memory is less
relevant than the amount of knowledge in memory for explaining age-related semantic
network change.

Vocabulary knowledge significantly mediated the effect of age on clustering coefficient – a

Author Manuscript

measure of interconnectedness among words in the semantic memory network – but did not
affect the other semantic memory network measures (i.e., global efficiency and modularity).
While these network measures are related to one another, some key differences remain.
Clustering coefficient measures the connectivity or richness of semantic neighborhoods.
Whereas modularity measures two different factors – how much the network breaks apart
into sub communities, and how much these subcommunities have higher within-group
clustering coefficient and lower between-group connectivity. In other words, our results
suggest that a person’s vocabulary size may influence how their words are connected in their
semantic memory network but not how these concepts cluster together into subcategories
or their overall network efficiency. The absence of an effect of vocabulary on processing
efficiency is supported by previous behavioral research where age-related increases in
vocabulary knowledge did not increase Tip of the Tongue states (Shafto et al., 2017).
Author Manuscript

Since vocabulary knowledge increases with age, we conclude that these results highlight the
impact of diverse life experiences on older adults’ semantic memory and demonstrate the
importance of accounting for individual differences in the aging mental lexicon.

Aging Semantic Memory Networks

Changes in semantic memory network structure as a result of healthy aging could occur
because of differences in the size and structure of the network (Wulff et al., 2018, 2019).
Several studies suggest that as people age their semantic memory networks become more
organized – represented by longer path lengths, greater modularity, and lower clustering
coefficients (Cosgrove et al., 2021; Dubossarsky et al., 2017; Wulff et al., 2018). Through
a percolation analysis (i.e., targeted attacks), we previously showed that this greater
organization has a cost in relation to network flexibility (Cosgrove et al., 2021). Vocabulary
Author Manuscript

knowledge increases with age, and larger semantic memory networks could hinder search
processes, contributing to the memory declines seen in the aging literature. These behavioral
changes likely lead to variation in semantic memory network structure between older and
younger individuals. The current study investigates the role of vocabulary knowledge in
these age-related semantic network differences. We find that as individuals continue to
acquire knowledge, this enriched vocabulary leads to maturation in the semantic memory
network. As we expected, the results of this study showed that older adults have more

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 12

segregated and less efficient semantic memory networks exhibited by higher modularity and
Author Manuscript

lower global efficiency values. Here, we replicate and extend our previous study’s findings
using a different semantic task to construct individual-based semantic memory networks,
demonstrating the robustness of our results across two different tasks.

Previous studies have emphasized the importance of assessing individual differences in the
underlying semantic memory network structure relevant for other cognitive abilities, such as
memory retrieval and creative thinking (Kenett & Faust, 2019a; Wulff et al., 2019; Zemla &
Austerweil, 2018). Wulff and colleagues (2018), for example, estimated semantic memory
networks from verbal fluency responses of younger and older adults from three separate
studies. Semantic memory networks of older adults were found to have fewer connections,
were less robust, and less efficient compared to younger adults – consistent with other
network studies on aging (Cosgrove et al., 2021; Dubossarsky et al., 2017; Kenett et al.
2021; Wulff et al., 2019). Extending the aggregated results of age-related differences in
Author Manuscript

network structure, individual differences were calculated from semantic similarity ratings
(Wulff et al., 2018). Critically, the similarity ratings used for older adult semantic memory
networks were not as generalizable across individuals as for younger semantic memory
networks. Our results align with the Wulff et al. (2018) study such that the variability across
the three network measures increased among our older adult group (see Table 1). Thus, our
results are consistent with prior aging literature using both individual differences and group
averages approaches, where older adults’ semantic memory networks are characterized by
longer path lengths, greater modularity, and lower clustering coefficients – indicating a less
efficient and less organized network. These structural differences may be due to a variety of
factors that may not necessarily reflect cognitive decline but rather differences in continued
learning across the lifespan (Wulff et al., 2018).
Author Manuscript

Individual Differences in Semantic Memory Representation

Life experiences and conceptual knowledge increase across the lifespan: older adults have
larger vocabularies and are more confident in their word knowledge (Verhaeghen, 2003;
Kavé & Halamish, 2015). Although there are well documented age-related differences in
vocabulary, semantic knowledge does not exist in a vacuum. Some research has claimed
that older adults have different memory representations due to the fact that they are exposed
to more environmental input (Ramscar et al., 2017). Further, lifelong word and association
learning has accounted for performance declines in older adults compared to younger adults
across a variety of tasks including recognition and word pair learning (Buchler et al., 2007;
Ramscar et al., 2017, respectively). Several studies utilizing picture naming and lexical
retrieval tasks have shown an interaction between semantic storage and semantic selection
(Burke et al., 1991; Lambon Ralph et al., 2017; Shafto et al., 2017). These results, however,
Author Manuscript

do not directly link increased knowledge with interference on word retrieval. Rather, they
provide additional evidence that crystallized intelligence supports successful word retrieval,
but this relationship weakens with age (Shafto et al., 2017). While age-related deficits in
single word retrieval are consistent across tasks, enhanced semantic context, from larger
vocabularies, can help older adults during discourse production (Kavé & Goral, 2017).
These findings provide further support for an adaptable semantic memory network structure,
dependent on the accumulation of knowledge and individual variability in life experiences.

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 13

While our individual-based semantic memory network measures largely replicate previous
Author Manuscript

aggregated results in the aging literature (Cosgrove et al., 2021; Dubossarsky et al., 2017;
Kenett et al., 2021; Wulff et al., 2019)(Wulff et al., 2022), more evidence is necessary
to substantiate any claims that group-based semantic memory networks are generalizable
across individuals – especially in aging populations. Moreover, it is important to evaluate
these results across multiple linguistic tasks, as highlighted by our results for verbal fluency
and vocabulary knowledge.

Though non-linguistic cognitive abilities, such as speed, working memory, and inhibition
decline with age, and these general cognitive changes can affect language ability (Caplan
& Waters, 2005; Hasher et al., 2008; Hoffman et al., 2018; Kemper et al., 2003a, 2003b,
2010; Pickering & Garrod, 2013; Salthouse, 2010), these mechanisms may not directly
affect the results of this study. The relatedness judgement task used to estimate semantic
networks was untimed. Previous studies have shown that activation processes are relatively
Author Manuscript

preserved with age, particularly when untimed measures are incorporated (Balota & Duchek,
1988; Burke & Shafto, 2008). Additionally, we did not find an age difference in our verbal
fluency production data – a task that reflects both language and executive functioning
abilities. While the Inhibitory Deficit Theory argues that the active, goal-directed process of
inhibition is the main source of variation in cognitive performance with age (Hasher et al.,
2008), age-related differences in inhibition are unlikely to be driving our results because we
did not observe age-related differences in a language production task that involves executive
function (i.e., verbal fluency).

Limitations and Future Directions

In this study, we compared our network results to verbal fluency data and found no
significant relationship. In addition to finding no significant age effects in the total number
Author Manuscript

of verbal fluency responses, we also did not find any age differences in clustering or
switching behaviors. While the verbal fluency and semantic relatedness judgment tasks
both tap into aspects of semantic processing, it is possible that the underlying cognitive
mechanisms required for each task are different. A semantic verbal fluency task focuses on
a single category (e.g., animals) and instructs the participants to produce as many words
belonging to this category in one minute. This time sensitive task utilizes semantic control
mechanisms, including aspects of executive functioning, to remain focused and inhibit any
incorrect responses (Amunts et al., 2020). Consistent with this, an analysis of younger adults
showed that semantic verbal fluency strongly correlated with executive factors of working
memory, fluid reasoning, and mental flexibility (Aita et al., 2018). In their study, individuals
who performed well on the verbal fluency task also had better executive functioning ability,
substantiating the claim that verbal fluency should be considered an executive language task
Author Manuscript

(Aita et al., 2018). Alternatively, the semantic memory networks in this study were created
from the relatedness judgment task, where participants judge how related two concepts are
to one another. In this task participants are likely employing more representational aspects of
semantics, highlighting the semantic store. Although the present experiment was sufficiently
powered to detect a large effect size (d > .8), it could be the case that the effect size related
to language production and semantic networks is smaller, and a significant effect would be
found with a larger sample size.

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 14

Another limitation of this study is that our approach was not able to capture all relevant
Author Manuscript

individual differences in semantic representations given that we included a relatively small

number of highly frequent and concrete words. This, however, is a common approach and
a common limitation due to time constraints. These stimuli have been used successfully in
the past to create semantic memory networks across several studies, labs, and languages
(Benedek et al., 2017; He et al., 2020; Ovando-Tellez et al., 2022). Prior work in the aging
literature has shown that during picture naming word retrieval, older adults have lower
accuracy for low frequency items compared to younger adults (Burke et al., 1991; Ferre et
al., 2020; Gertel et al., 2020), which suggests that even larger age-related differences may
be found with less frequent words. Future studies should expand the breadth of cue words to
include lower frequency items that may lie along the periphery of the semantic network and
may reveal greater age-related differences.

Another limitation of the present work relates to general sampling issues in aging research.
Author Manuscript

Online data collection is beneficial in cognitive aging research – allowing scientists to

capture a more diverse representation of participants as well as assessing whether age-
related effects generalize to non-laboratory environments (i.e., improving ecological validity
of the results). An open question remains, however, about the sampling of older adults
who participate in these online studies and whether their data is a reliable subset of the
larger population (Greene & Naveh-Benjamin, 2022). While we did not collect details on
educational attainment or occupation, we did collect a fluid intelligence score from the
Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT; Cattell & Cattell, 1960). An independent sample t-tests
showed that fluid intelligence scores were lower for older adults, t(53) = −2.9, p = .005.
These findings are consistent with the aging literature (e.g., Park et al., 2002) and suggest
that our older adult sample reflects typical cognitive aging.
Author Manuscript

In addition, although we assessed individual variability between younger and older adults,
our data consisted of an extreme age group comparison. Including a middle-aged participant
group would allow for a more continuous lifespan sample to better measure individual
variability in the relationship between language processing (i.e., production and vocabulary),
semantic memory network properties, and age. Moreover, despite its utility, the cross-
sectional approach incorporates only a single time point measured across individuals. This
means that group differences may also include cohort effects and impair our ability to assess
aging effects. This concern also relates to the mediation analyses (e.g., Hofer & Sliwinski,
2001; O’Laughlin et al., 2018). For this reason, we interpret the results as suggesting that
vocabulary and semantic network structure are related. The causal nature of this relationship
cannot be fully examined without longitudinal research and alternative causal chains where
a third variable explains age-related differences in both vocabulary and semantic network
Author Manuscript

structure is also possible (e.g., Lindenberger et al., 2011; Raz & Lindenberger, 2011). While
our findings shed light on the relationship between individual network structure, age, and
vocabulary knowledge, the practical consequences of age-related differences in network
structure are still emerging and this remains a promising area for future research.

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 15

Conclusions
Author Manuscript

The present study examined individual differences in semantic memory network structure
across the lifespan. Overall, the estimated individual-based semantic memory networks of
younger and older adults largely replicated prior findings from aggregated semantic memory
networks: older adults’ semantic memory networks showed lower levels of efficiency, but
increased modular structure (Cosgrove et al., 2021; Dubossarsky et al., 2017; Kenett et
al., 2021; Wulff et al., 2019; Wulff et al., 2022). Extending previous work, we found
that these semantic memory network differences reflect age-related increases in vocabulary
knowledge, which are consistently found across the aging literature (Park et al., 2002;
Verhaeghen, 2003). Previous work has associated these age differences to the deterioration
of links in semantic memory networks (Wulff et al., 2018). However, our findings show that
age-related increases in vocabulary knowledge reflect the critical role that the accumulation
of knowledge has on the structure of semantic memory.
Author Manuscript

Author Note & Acknowledgements

This publication was supported by funding from the National Institute on Aging NIH NIA R01 AG034138 to
Michele T. Diaz. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the
official views of the funding agencies. We thank Brendan Baker for help programming the online experiment.
Preliminary results and analyses of this project were reported at the 2022 International Workshop on Language
Production. A draft of this manuscript and all materials, analyses, and R Scripts for this project can be found here:
https://osf.io/rh76p/.

Appendix

Appendix
Appendix A:
Author Manuscript

Stimulus words used in the semantic relatedness judgment task (Benedek et al., 2017)

Animals Nature Food Tools Furniture Clothes Container

Dog Mountain Meat Hammer Bed Shoe Bucket

Cat Tree Cheese Broom Table Trouser Bottle
Bird River Water Pen Cupboard Hat Sack
Cow Sun Bread Knife Lamp Umbrella Can

Appendix
Appendix B:

Linguistic features of stimulus words in the semantic relatedness judgment task defined by
Author Manuscript

the English Lexicon Project (Balota et al., 2007) and Brysabert et al., 2014 concreteness
ratings.

Word Length Freq_HAL Log_Freq_HAL Concreteness Age of Acquisition

knife 5 7,120 8.871 4.9 4.15

water 5 105,961 11.571 5 2.37

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 16
Author Manuscript

Word Length Freq_HAL Log_Freq_HAL Concreteness Age of Acquisition

umbrella 8 1,930 7.565 5 5.68

trouser 7 186 5.226 4.89 7.22
tree 4 27,218 10.212 5 3.57
table 5 56,081 10.935 4.9 4.39
sun 3 74,083 11.213 4.83 3.4
shoe 4 5,209 8.558 4.97 2.6
sack 4 2,220 7.705 4.84 5.83
river 5 27,274 10.214 4.89 4.9
pen 3 7,902 8.975 4.92 5.11
mountain 8 34,727 10.455 4.96 6.15
Author Manuscript

meat 4 14,861 9.606 4.9 4.42

lamp 4 6,657 8.803 4.97 4
bed 3 31,345 10.353 5 2.89
hat 3 11,748 9.371 4.88 3.33
hammer 6 6,714 8.812 4.77 5.42
dog 3 58,314 10.974 4.85 2.8
cupboard 8 564 6.335 4.79 6.39
cow 3 7,262 8.89 4.96 3.94
cheese 6 8,662 9.067 4.7 4.33
cat 3 38,649 10.562 4.86 3.68
can 3 1,625,073 14.301 4.55 4.32
bucket 6 3,329 8.11 4.96 5.61
broom 5 600 6.397 4.89 5.5
Author Manuscript

bread 5 9,063 9.112 4.92 3.58

bottle 6 18,633 9.833 4.91 3.56
bird 4 19,070 9.856 5 3.52

Appendix
Appendix C:

Multiple Group Comparisons of Lexical Characteristics between the 7 Categories of

Stimulus Words yields no significant differences.

Lexical Characteristic F-Value P-Value

Length 2.52 0.1

Author Manuscript

Log Frequency 2.45 0.11

Concreteness Rating 0.62 0.71
Age of Acquisition 2.33 0.12
Semantic Neighborhood Density 0.71 0.65

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 17

Appendix D:
Author Manuscript

Example of the Relatedness Judgement Task Display.

Appendix E:
An example visualization of individual semantic memory networks estimated from the
Author Manuscript

Relatedness Judgement Task (RJT) for the 28 younger (top) and 28 older adults (bottom).
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 18
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Appendix F:
Correlation matrices across all measures are reported separately for the younger (top) and
Author Manuscript

older adults (bottom).

Author Manuscript

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 19
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 20

References
Author Manuscript

Aita SL, Beach JD, Taylor SE, Borgogna NC, Harrell MN, & Hill BD (2019). Executive,
language, or both? an examination of the construct validity of verbal fluency measures. Applied
Neuropsychology. Adult, 26(5), 441–451. 10.1080/23279095.2018.1439830 [PubMed: 29513079]
Allen PA, Madden DJ, Weber TA, & Groth KE (1993). Influence of age and processing stage on visual
word recognition. Psychology and Aging, 8(2), 274–282. 10.1037/0882-7974.8.2.274 [PubMed:
8323730]
Amunts J, Camilleri JA, Eickhoff SB, Heim S, & Weis S (2020). Executive functions predict
verbal fluency scores in healthy participants. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 11141–11141. 10.1038/
s41598-020-65525-9 [PubMed: 32636406]
Balota DA, Black SR, & Cheney M (1992). Automatic and attentional priming in young and older
adults: Reevaluation of the two-process model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 18(2), 485–502. 10.1037/0096-1523.18.2.485 [PubMed: 1593231]
Balota DA, & Duchek JM (1988). Age-related differences in lexical access, spreading activation, and
simple pronunciation. Psychology and Aging, 3(1), 84. [PubMed: 3268246]
Author Manuscript

Balota DA, & Duchek JM (1991). Semantic priming effects, lexical repetition effects, and contextual
disambiguation effects in healthy aged individuals and individuals with senile dementia of the
alzheimer type. Brain and Language, 40(2), 181–201. 10.1016/0093-934X(91)90124-J [PubMed:
2036582]
Balota DA, Yap MJ, Cortese MJ, Hutchison KA, Kessler B, Loftis B, Neely JH, Nelson DL, Simpson
GB, & Treiman R (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.
[PubMed: 17958156]
Benedek M, Kenett Y, Umdasch K, & Anaki D (2017). How semantic memory structure and
intelligence contribute to creative thought: A network science approach. Thinking & Reasoning,
23(2), 158–183. 10.1080/13546783.2016.1278034
Benton AL (1968). Differential behavioral effects in frontal lobe disease. Neuropsychologia, 6(1),
53–60. 10.1016/0028-3932(68)90038-9
Bieth T, Kenett YN, Ovando-Tellez M, Lopez-Persem A, Lacaux C, Oudiette D, & Volle E (2021).
Dynamic changes in semantic memory structure support successful problem-solving. PsyArXiv
10.31234/osf.io/38b4w
Author Manuscript

Binder JR, Desai RH, Graves WW, & Conant LL (2009). Where is the semantic system? A critical
review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19(12), 2767–
2796. [PubMed: 19329570]
Brysbaert M, Warriner AB, & Kuperman V (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally
known English word lemmas. Behavior research methods, 46(3), 904–911. [PubMed: 24142837]
Buchler NEG, & Reder LM (2007). Modeling age-related memory deficits: A twoparameter solution.
Psychology and Aging, 22(1), 104–121. 10.1037/0882-7974.22.1.104 [PubMed: 17385988]
Burke DM, MacKay DG, Worthley JS, & Wade E (1991). On the tip of the tongue: What causes word
finding failures in young and older adults? Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 542–579.
10.1016/0749-596X(91)90026-G
Burke DM, & Peters L (1986). Word associations in old age: Evidence for consistency in semantic
encoding during adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 1(4), 283–292. 10.1037/0882-7974.1.4.283
[PubMed: 3267408]
Burke DM, & Shafto MA (2004). Aging and Language Production. Current Directions in
Author Manuscript

Psychological Science, 13(1), 21–24. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01301006.x [PubMed: 18414600]

Burke DM, & Shafto MA (2008). Language and aging. In Craik F & Salthouse TA (Eds.), The
Handbook of Aging and Cognition. (Vol. 3, pp. 373–444).
Burke DM, White H, & Diaz DL (1987). Semantic priming in young and older adults: Evidence for
age constancy in automatic and attentional processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 13(1), 79–88. 10.1037/0096-1523.13.1.79 [PubMed: 2951489]
Cabeza R, Albert M, Belleville S, Craik FIM, Duarte A, Grady CL, Lindenberger U, Nyberg L,
Park DC, Reuter-Lorenz PA, Rugg MD, Steffener J, & Rajah MN (2018). Maintenance, reserve

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 21

and compensation: The cognitive neuroscience of healthy ageing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
19(11), 701–710. 10.1038/s41583-018-0068-2
Author Manuscript

Caplan D, & Waters G (2005). The relationship between age, processing speed, working memory
capacity, and language comprehension. Memory, 13(3–4), 403–413. [PubMed: 15952262]
Castro N, Curley T, & Hertzog C (2021). Category norms with a cross-sectional sample of adults in the
United States: Consideration of cohort, age, and historical effects on semantic categories. Behavior
Research Methods, 53(2), 898–917. [PubMed: 32901344]
Castro N, & Siew CSQ (2020). Contributions of modern network science to the cognitive sciences:
Revisiting research spirals of representation and process. Proceedings of the Royal Society.
A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 476(2238), 20190825–20190825. 10.1098/
rspa.2019.0825
Castro N, Stella M, & Siew CSQ (2020). Quantifying the interplay of semantics and phonology during
failures of word retrieval by people with aphasia using a multiplex lexical network. Cognitive
Science, 44(9), e12881–n/a. 10.1111/cogs.12881 [PubMed: 32893389]
Cattell RB, & Cattell AKS (1960). Culture fair intelligence test, scale 2. Champaign, IL: Institute for
Personality and Ability Testing.
Author Manuscript

Cohen-Shikora E, & Balota DA (2016). Visual word recognition across the adult lifespan. Psychology
and Aging, 31(5), 488–502. doi:10.1037/pag0000100 [PubMed: 27336629]
Collins AM, & Loftus EF (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological
Review, 82(6), 407–428. 10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407
Cosgrove AL, Kenett Y, Beaty RE, & Diaz MT (2021). Quantifying flexibility in thought: The
resiliency of semantic networks differs across the lifespan. Cognition, 211(Journal Article),
104631–104631. 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104631 [PubMed: 33639378]
Dubossarsky H, De Deyne S, & Hills TT (2017). Quantifying the structure of free association
networks across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 53(8), 1560–1570. 10.1037/dev0000347
[PubMed: 28569517]
Ekstrom RB, & Harman HH (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests, 1976.
Educational Testing Service. https://go.exlibris.link/m1fXpttv
Ferre P, Bellec P, Joanette Y, Brambati S, & Jarret J (2020). Functional connectivity of
successful picture-naming: age-specific organization and the effect of engaging in stimulating
Author Manuscript

activities. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 12(Journal Article), 535770–535770. 10.3389/

fnagi.2020.535770 [PubMed: 33250759]
Fortunato S (2010). Community detection in graphs. Physics Reports, 486(3–5), 75–174.
Gertel VH, Karimi H, Dennis NA, Neely KA, & Diaz MT (2020). Lexical frequency affects functional
activation and accuracy in picture naming among older and younger adults. Psychology and
Aging, 35(4), 536–552. 10.1037/pag0000454 [PubMed: 32191059]
Greene NR, & Naveh-Benjamin M (2022). Online experimentation and sampling in cognitive aging
research. Psychology and aging, 37(1), 72–83. 10.1037/pag0000655 [PubMed: 35113615]
Gollan TH, & Goldrick M (2019). Aging deficits in naturalistic speech production and monitoring
revealed through reading aloud. Psychology and Aging, 34(1), 25. [PubMed: 30265018]
Hasher L, Lustig C, & Zacks R (2008). Inhibitory Mechanisms and the Control of Attention. In
Conway A, Jarrold C, Kane M, Miyake A, & Towse J (Eds.), Variation in Working Memory (pp.
227–249). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195168648.003.0009
Hasher L, Lustig C, & Zacks RT (2007). Inhibitory mechanisms and the control of attention. Variation
in Working Memory, 19, 227–249.
Author Manuscript

Hasher L, Stoltzfus ER, Zacks RT, & Rypma B (1991). Age and inhibition. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(1), 163–169. 10.1037/0278-7393.17.1.163
[PubMed: 1826730]
He L, Kenett Y, Zhuang K, Liu C, Zeng R, Yan T, Huo T, & Qiu J (2021). The relation between
semantic memory structure, associative abilities, and verbal and figural creativity. Thinking &
Reasoning, 27(2), 268–293. 10.1080/13546783.2020.1819415
Hills TT, & Kenett Y (2022). Is the mind a network? Maps, vehicles, and skyhooks in cognitive
network science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 14(1), 189–208. 10.1111/tops.12570 [PubMed:
34435461]

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 22

Hills TT, Maouene M, Maouene J, Sheya A, & Smith L (2009a). Categorical structure among
shared features in networks of early-learned nouns. Cognition, 112(3), 381–396. doi:10.1016/
Author Manuscript

j.cognition.2009.06.002 [PubMed: 19576579]

Hills TT, Maouene M, Maouene J, Sheya A, & Smith L (2009b). Longitudinal analysis of early
semantic networks: Preferential attachment or preferential acquisition? Psychological Science, 20,
729–739. [PubMed: 19470123]
Hofer SM, & Sliwinski MJ (2001). Understanding ageing: An evaluation of research designs for
assessing the interdependence of ageing-related changes. Gerontology, 47(6), 341–352. [PubMed:
11721149]
Hoffman P (2018). An individual differences approach to semantic cognition: Divergent effects
of age on representation, retrieval and selection. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 8145. 10.1038/
s41598-018-26569-0 [PubMed: 29802344]
Howard DV, McAndrews MP, & Lasaga MI (1981). Semantic priming of lexical decisions in
young and old adults. Journal of gerontology, 36(6), 707–714. 10.1093/geronj/36.6.707 [PubMed:
7299087]
Howard DV (1983). The effects of aging and degree of association on the semantic priming of lexical
Author Manuscript

decisions. Experimental Aging Research, 9(3), 145–151. 10.1080/03610738308258443 [PubMed:

6641773]
Kavé G, & Goral M (2017). Do age-related word retrieval difficulties appear (or disappear) in
connected speech? Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 24(5), 508–527.
Kavé G, & Halamish V (2015). Doubly blessed: Older adults know more vocabulary and know better
what they know. Psychology and Aging, 30(1), 68–73. 10.1037/a0038669 [PubMed: 25602490]
Kemper S, Herman R, & Lian C (2003a). Age differences in sentence production. The Journals of
Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(5), P260–P268. [PubMed:
14507932]
Kemper S, Herman R, & Lian C(2003b). The costs of doing two things at once for young and older
adults: Talking while walking, finger tapping, and ignoring speech or noise. Psychology and
Aging, 18(2), 181–192. 10.1037/0882-7974.18.2.181 [PubMed: 12825768]
Kemper S, Schmalzried R, Hoffman L, & Herman R (2010). Aging and the vulnerability of speech
to dual task demands. Psychology & Aging, 25(4), 949–962. 10.1037/a0020000 [PubMed:
21186917]
Author Manuscript

Kenett Y, & Faust M (2019a). A semantic network cartography of the creative mind. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 23(4), 271–274. 10.1016/j.tics.2019.01.007 [PubMed: 30803872]
Kenett Y., & Faust M. (2019b). Clinical Cognitive Networks: A graph theory approach (pp. 136–165).
Kenett Y, Levi E, Anaki D, & Faust M (2017). The semantic distance task: Quantifying semantic
distance with semantic network path length. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 43(9), 1470. [PubMed: 28240936]
Kenett Y, Levy O, Kenett DY, & Stanley HE (2018). Flexibility of thought in high creative individuals
represented by percolation analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 115(5), 867–872. 10.1073/pnas.1717362115 [PubMed: 29339514]
Kenett YN, & Thompson-Schill SL (2020). Novel conceptual combination can dynamically
reconfigure semantic memory networks. PsyArXiv. 10.31234/osf.io/crp47
Kenett Y, Ungar L, & Chatterjee A (2021). Beauty and wellness in the semantic memory of the
beholder. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 3310. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.696507
Klimesch W (1987). A connectivity model for semantic processing. Psychological Research, 49(1),
Author Manuscript

53–61. 10.1007/BF00309203
Kroll NEA, & Klimesch W (1992). Semantic memory: Complexity or connectivity? Memory &
Cognition, 20(2), 192–210 [PubMed: 1565017]
Kumar AA, Balota DA, & Steyvers M (2020). Distant connectivity and multiple-step priming in large-
scale semantic networks. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
46(12), 2261–2276. 10.1037/xlm0000793 [PubMed: 31789562]
Lambon Ralph MAL, Jefferies E, Patterson K, & Rogers TT (2017). The neural and computational
bases of semantic cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(1), 42–55. 10.1038/nrn.2016.150
[PubMed: 27881854]

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 23

Laver GD, & Burke DM (1993). Why do semantic priming effects increase in old age? A meta-
analysis. Psychology and Aging, 8(1), 34–43. 10.1037/0882-7974.8.1.34 [PubMed: 8461113]
Author Manuscript

Lindenberger U, Von Oertzen T, Ghisletta P, & Hertzog C (2011). Cross-sectional age variance
extraction: what’s change got to do with it?. Psychology and Aging, 26(1), 34. [PubMed:
21417539]
Madden DJ, Pierce TW, & Allen PA (1993). Age-related slowing and the time course of
semantic priming in visual word identification. Psychology and Aging, 8(4), 490–507.
10.1037/0882-7974.8.4.490 [PubMed: 8292278]
Mak MHC, & Twitchell H (2020). Evidence for preferential attachment: Words that are more well
connected in semantic networks are better at acquiring new links in pairedassociate learning.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(5), 1059–1069. 10.3758/s13423-020-01773-0 [PubMed:
32638328]
Newman MEJ (2006). Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences USA, 103(23), 8577–8582.
O’Laughlin KD, Martin MJ, & Ferrer E (2018). Cross-sectional analysis of longitudinal mediation
processes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(3), 375–402. [PubMed: 29624079]
Author Manuscript

Ovando-Tellez M, Kenett YN, Benedek M, Bernard M, Belo J, Beranger B, Bieth T, & Volle
E (2022). Brain connectivity-based prediction of real-life creativity is mediated by semantic
memory structure. Science Advances, 8(5), eabl4294eabl4294. 10.1126/sciadv.abl4294 [PubMed:
35119928]
Park DC, Lautenschlager G, Hedden T, Davidson NS, Smith AD, & Smith PK (2002). Models of
visuospatial and verbal memory across the adult life span. Psychology and Aging, 17(2), 299–320.
10.1037/0882-7974.17.2.299 [PubMed: 12061414]
Peelle JE (2019). Language and aging. The Oxford Handbook of Neurolinguistics, 295–216.
Pexman PM, Heard A, Lloyd E, & Yap MJ (2017). The Calgary semantic decision project: Concrete/
abstract decision data for 10,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 407–417.
[PubMed: 26944579]
Pexman PM, & Yap MJ (2018). Individual differences in semantic processing: Insights from the
calgary semantic decision project. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 44(7), 1091–1112. 10.1037/xlm0000499 [PubMed: 29481104]
Author Manuscript

Pickering MJ, & Garrod S (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension.
The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329–347. 10.1017/S0140525X12001495 [PubMed:
23789620]
Rabaglia CD, & Salthouse TA (2011). Natural and constrained language production as a function of
age and cognitive abilities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(10), 1505–1531.
Ramscar M, Sun CC, Hendrix P, & Baayen H (2017). The mismeasurement of mind: Lifespan
changes in paired-associate-learning scores reflect the “Cost” of learning, not cognitive decline.
Psychological Science, 28(8), 1171–1179. doi:10.1177/0956797617706393 [PubMed: 28700267]
Raz N, & Lindenberger U (2011). Only time will tell: Cross-sectional studies offer no solution to the
age–brain–cognition triangle: Comment on Salthouse (2011).
Rubinov M, & Sporns O (2010). Complex network measures of brain connectivity: Uses
and interpretations. Neuroimage, 52(3), 1059. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.003 [PubMed:
19819337]
Salthouse TA (2010). Selective review of cognitive aging. Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society, 16(5), 754–760. [PubMed: 20673381]
Author Manuscript

Shafto MA, James LE, Abrams L, & Tyler LK (2017). Age-related increases in verbal knowledge are
not associated with word finding problems in the cam-can cohort: what you know won’t hurt you.
The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 72(1), 100.
[PubMed: 27371482]
Siew CSQ, Wulff DU, Beckage NM, & Kenett Y (2019). Cognitive network science: A review
of research on cognition through the lens of network representations, processes, and dynamics.
Complexity, 2019, 1–24. 10.1155/2019/2108423
Sporns O (2011). Networks of the brain. MIT Press.

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 24

Steyvers M, & Tenenbaum JB (2005). The large-scale structure of semantic networks: statistical
analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cognitive Science, 29(1), 41–78. 10.1207/
Author Manuscript

s15516709cog2901_3 [PubMed: 21702767]

Tingley D, Yamamoto T, Hirose K, Keele L, & Imai K (2014). Mediation: R package for causal
mediation analysis.
van Buuren S, & Groothuis-Oudshoorn K (2011). mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations
in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–67. 10.18637/jss.v045.i03
Verhaeghen P (2003). Aging and vocabulary score: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 18(2),
332–338. [PubMed: 12825780]
Wulff DU, De Deyne S, Aeschbach S, & Mata R (2022). Using network science to understand the
aging lexicon: Linking individuals’ experience, semantic networks, and cognitive performance.
Topics in Cognitive Science, 14(1), 93–110. 10.1111/tops.12586 [PubMed: 35040557]
Wulff DU, De Deyne S, Jones MN, & Mata R (2019). New perspectives on the aging lexicon. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 23(8), 686. 10.1016/j.tics.2019.05.003 [PubMed: 31288976]
Wulff Hills T, ., & Mata R. (2018). Structural differences in the semantic networks of younger and
older adults. PsyArXiv.
Author Manuscript

Yap MJ, Pexman PM, Wellsby M, Hargreaves IS, & Huff MJ (2012). An abundance of riches: Cross-
task comparisons of semantic richness effects in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 6, 72–72. 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00072 [PubMed: 22529787]
Yee E, & Thompson-Schill SL (2016). Putting concepts into context. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
23(4), 1015–1027. 10.3758/s13423-015-0948-7 [PubMed: 27282993]
Zemla JC, & Austerweil JL (2018). Estimating semantic networks of groups and individuals from
fluency data. Computational Brain & Behavior, 1–23. [PubMed: 30906917]
Zortea M, Menegola B, Villavicencio A, & Salles JF de. (2014). Graph analysis of semantic word
association among children, adults, and the elderly. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 27(1), 90–99.
10.1590/S0102-79722014000100011
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 25

Public Significance Statement:

Author Manuscript

Although knowledge and vocabulary continue to grow throughout the lifespan, this
expansion affects how information is stored in semantic memory. Computational network
analysis showed that increases in vocabulary were associated with semantic memory
networks that were less interconnected, less efficient, and more modular.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 26
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Examples of an individual-based semantic memory network for a younger adult (left) and
older adult (right) calculated from their semantic relatedness judgements.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 27
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 2.
Differences among age and semantic network measures of clustering coefficient (left),
global efficiency (middle), and modularity (right). Older adults’ semantic networks exhibited
lower clustering coefficients and global efficiency values, yet greater modularity properties
compared to younger adults.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 28
Author Manuscript

Figure 3.
Author Manuscript

Effect of vocabulary knowledge on individual-based semantic memory network measures

of clustering coefficient (left), global efficiency (middle), and modularity (right). Xaxis –
vocabulary knowledge. Y-axis – network measure. Shaded gray area represents standard
deviation. Green data points represent younger adults, orange data points represent older
adults.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 29
Author Manuscript

Figure 4.
Mediation analysis with age group (older adults = 1, younger adults = 0) as the independent
variable, vocabulary knowledge as the mediator, and individual-based semantic memory
Author Manuscript

network measures of clustering coefficient (left), global efficiency (middle), and modularity
(right) as the dependent variables. Path coefficients are standardized β-coefficients from
(multiple) regression analyses. The coefficient below the dotted line is the standardized
β-coefficients for the mediated effect.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 30

Table 1.

Summary statistics for network measures of clustering coefficient (CC), global efficiency (Eglobal), and
Author Manuscript

modularity (Q), as well as verbal fluency and vocabulary performance for younger and older adults.

Younger Adults Older Adults

CC Mean (SD) 0.31 (0.11) 0.24 (0.11)

CC Range 0.13 – 0.51 0.06 – 0.53

Eglobal Mean (SD) 0.46 (0.10) 0.38 (0.16)

Eglobal Range 0.17 – 0.66 0.04 – 0.70

Q Mean (SD) 0.16 (0.10) 0.31 (0.12)

Q Range 0.04 – 0.45 0.13 – 0.50

Verbal Fluency Total Mean (SD) 37.29 (15.05) 35.68 (14.51)

Verbal Fluency Total Range 11 – 71 8 – 63

Vocabulary Total Mean (SD) 20.94 (5.30) 28.54 (7.72)

Author Manuscript

Vocabulary Total Range 11 – 30 5 – 38

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.

 Cosgrove et al. Page 31

Table 2.

Mediation analysis for vocabulary and verbal fluency performance.

Author Manuscript

Mediation Model Beta Value p value

Vocabulary mediating Age—Modularity Relationship 0.1095 0.22

Vocabulary mediating Age—Clustering Coefficient Relationship −0.258 0.008*

Vocabulary mediating Age—Global Efficiency Relationship −0.207 0.068

Verbal Fluency mediating Age—Modularity Relationship 0.00181 0.83

Verbal Fluency mediating Age—Clustering Coefficient Relationship −0.0001 0.772

Verbal Fluency mediating Age—Global Efficiency Relationship −0.00251 0.884

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Psychol Aging. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 March 23.