ArticleNPJ science of learning2025
Reading comprehension in L1 and L2 readers: neurocomputational mechanisms revealed through large language models.
Article in NPJ science of learning, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural tracking of surprisal in Spanish-English bilingual children during naturalistic heritage language listening.Brain and language · 2026Article
- Increasing alignment of large language models with language processing in the human brain.Nature computational science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While evidence has accumulated to support the argument of shared computational mechanisms underlying language comprehension between humans and large language models (LLMs), few studies have examined this argument beyond native-speaker populations. This study examines whether and how alignment between LLMs and human brains captures the homogeneity and heterogeneity in both first-language (L1) and second-language (L2) readers. We recorded brain responses of L1 and L2 English readers of texts and assessed reading performance against individual difference factors. At the group level, the two groups displayed comparable model-brain alignment in widespread regions, with similar unique contributions from contextual embeddings. At the individual level, multiple regression models revealed the effects of linguistic abilities on alignment for both groups, but effects of attentional ability and language dominance status for L2 readers only. These findings provide evidence that LLMs serve as cognitively plausible models in characterizing homogeneity and heterogeneity in reading across human populations.
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.