Harmonic centrality and local clustering coefficient show no relation with working memory capacity¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? No statistically significant relation was found between working memory capacity and harmonic centrality (p = 0.168) or the local clustering coefficient (p = 0.175); equivalence was not tested. → Catrysse 2025

Evidence¶

Catrysse 2025¶

Catrysse, L., van Daal, T., Jarodzka, H., Kaakinen, J. K., Donche, V., & Gijbels, D. (2025). How Eye Read: A Social Network Approach. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10000-y

q3 · i? · associational · r1

Null findings from the mixed-effects models in the 31-reader study: the printed WMC effects were non-significant for harmonic centrality (p = 0.168) and for the local clustering coefficient (p = 0.175), with marginal R² of 0.026 and 0.009 respectively.

"There is no relation between working memory capacity and harmonic centrality."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Working Memory — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Strength is strongly positively correlated with second-pass reading time, while betweenness, harmonic centrality and local clustering coefficient are not related to duration measures — related
• Topic-final sentences show higher harmonic centrality than topic-medial sentences and lower local clustering coefficient than other sentence types — related
• Betweenness centrality decreases as working memory capacity increases — related
• Readers with higher working memory capacity make more transitions between sentences (higher strength) — related