ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Crowdsourced and AI-generated age-of-acquisition (AoA) norms for vocabulary in print: Extending the Kuperman et al. (2012) norms.
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 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.
- Adding LLMs to the psycholinguistic norming toolbox: A practical guide to getting the most out of human ratings.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Leave the world(view) behind, but keep the words: The effect of conspiracism on writing.PloS one · 2026Article
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
This paper revisits the age-of-acquisition (AoA) norms of Kuperman et al. (2012). Three studies were conducted. Study 1 reports a crowdsourcing 'megastudy' obtaining 790,024 estimates from participants with the age they could first read and write 11,074 early acquired words from Kuperman et al. (2012). The study aimed to differentiate between oral language receptive AoA and print-based AoA. The results correlate well with the original estimates, offering, as hypothesized, higher AoAs for reading/writing. These are released as supplements to the original norms. Study 2 explored the potential of large language models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4o, to replicate these crowdsourced AoA estimates. The findings indicated a strong correlation between AI-generated estimates and human judgments, showing the utility of AI in estimating AoA and developing norms for psycholinguistic and educational research in lieu of crowdsourcing. Study 3 leveraged AI to extend estimates to all well-known words in Kuperman et al. (2012) and the English Crowdsourcing Project (ECP). Study 3 also investigated a trained model fine-tuned on 2000 ratings from Kuperman et al. (2012). Fine-tuning increased alignment with human ratings, though comparisons with untrained models suggested that fine-tuning is not essential in English for obtaining useful AoA estimates. Both trained and untrained AI-generated norms correlated highly with human ratings and performed well in accounting for word processing times and accuracy in regressions. Uses and limitations of the AI estimates are discussed. All resources are made available in the Open Science Framework and can be used freely for research and education.
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.