ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Language models and psychological sciences.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metacognition of ChatGPT in confidence judgements.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Large language model performance versus human expert ratings in automated suicide risk assessment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Attention heads of large language models.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- Text understanding in GPT-4 versus humans.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Precision neuropsychology in the area of AI.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Challenging large language models' "Heliyon · 2024Article
- Does ChatGPT have a typical or atypical theory of mind?Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are demonstrating impressive performance on many reasoning and problem-solving tasks from cognitive psychology. When tested, their accuracy is often on par with average neurotypical adults, challenging long-standing critiques of associative models. Here we analyse recent findings at the intersection of LLMs and cognitive science. Here we discuss how modern LLMs resurrect associationist principles, with abilities like long-distance associations enabling complex reasoning. While limitations remain in areas like causal cognition and planning, phenomena like emergence suggest room for growth. Providing examples and increasing the dimensions of the network are methods that further improve LLM abilities, mirroring facilitation effects in human cognition. Analysis of LLMs errors provides insight into human cognitive biases. Overall, we argue LLMs represent a promising development for cognitive modelling, enabling new explorations of the mechanisms underlying intelligence and reasoning from an associationist point of view. Carefully evaluating LLMs with the tools of cognitive psychology will further understand the building blocks of the human mind.
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.