Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40804188›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2025

Sentence processing by humans and machines: Large language models as a tool to better understand human reading.

Nikki G Kaye, Peter C Gordon

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nikki G KayeDepartment of Psychology & Neuroscience, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB#3270, Chapel Hill, NC, 26599-3270, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0192-1720
Peter C GordonDepartment of Psychology & Neuroscience, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB#3270, Chapel Hill, NC, 26599-3270, USA. pcg@unc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5845-0763

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Online measures of reading have been studied with the goal of understanding how humans process language incrementally as they progress through a text. A focus of this research has been on pinpointing how the context of a word influences its processing. Quantitatively measuring the effects of context has proven difficult but with advances in artificial intelligence, large language models (LLMs) are more capable of generating humanlike language, drawing solely on information about the probabilistic relationships of units of language (e.g., words) occurring together. LLMs can be used to estimate the probability of any word in the model's vocabulary occurring as the next word in a given context. These next-word probabilities can be used in the calculation of information theoretic metrics, such as entropy and surprisal, which can be assessed as measures of word-by-word processing load. This is done by analyzing whether entropy and surprisal derived from language models predict variance in online measures of human reading comprehension (e.g., eye-movement, self-paced reading, ERP data). The present review synthesizes empirical findings on this topic and evaluates their methodological and theoretical implications.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceComprehensionLanguagePsycholinguisticsReadingHumansLarge Language ModelsInformation theoryLarge language modelsReading

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.