ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Simulating lexical decision times with large language models to supplement megastudies and crowdsourcing.
Article in Behavior research methods, 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.
- Contextualized sensorimotor norms: Multi-dimensional measures of sensorimotor strength for ambiguous English words, in context.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Adding LLMs to the psycholinguistic norming toolbox: A practical guide to getting the most out of human ratings.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Crowdsourced and AI-generated age-of-acquisition (AoA) norms for vocabulary in print: Extending the Kuperman et al. (2012) norms.Behavior research methods · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Megastudies and crowdsourcing studies are a rich source of information for word recognition research because they provide processing times for thousands of words. However, the high cost makes it impossible to include all words of interest and all relevant participant groups. This study explores the potential of fine-tuned large language models (LLMs) to generate lexical decision times (RTs) similar to those of humans. Building on recent findings that LLMs can accurately estimate word features, we fine-tuned GPT-4o mini with 3000 words from a megastudy. We then gave the model the task of generating RT estimates for the remaining words in the dataset. Our findings showed a high correlation between AI-generated and observed RTs. We discuss three applications: (1) estimating missing RT data, where AI can fill in gaps for words missing in some megastudies, (2) verifying results of virtual experiments, where AI-generated data can provide an additional layer of validation for results of virtual experiments, and (3) optimizing human data collection, as researchers can run simulations before conducting studies with humans. While AI-generated RTs are not a replacement for human data, they have the potential to increase the flexibility and efficiency of megastudy research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40987999What 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.