ArticleHeliyon2025
The acceptability and validity of AI-generated psycholinguistic stimuli.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Language-Switching Cost in Chinese-English Bilingual Reading Comprehension: Evidence from Eye-Tracking.Journal of psycholinguistic research · 2026Article
- Beyond traditional stimuli: Validating AI-generated images for eliciting negative emotions in affect research.PloS one · 2026Article
- MacBehaviour: An R package for behavioural experimentation on large language models.Behavior research methods · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sentence stimuli pervade psycholinguistics research. Yet, limited attention has been paid to the automatic construction of sentence stimuli. Given their linguistic capabilities, this study investigated the efficacy of ChatGPT in generating sentence stimuli and AI tools in producing auditory sentence stimuli. In three psycholinguistic experiments, this study examined the acceptability and validity of AI-formulated auditory sentences and written sentences in one of the two languages: English and Arabic. In Experiment 1 and 3, participants gave English AI-generated stimuli similar to or higher acceptability ratings than human-composed stimuli. In Experiment 2, Arabic AI-generated stimuli received lower acceptability ratings than their human-composed counterparts. The validity of AI-developed stimuli relied on the study design, with only Experiment 2 demonstrating the target psycholinguistic effect. These results highlight the promising role of AI as a stimuli developer, which could facilitate psycholinguistic research and increase its diversity. Implications for psycholinguistic research were discussed.
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.