ArticleF1000Research2025
Non-native speakers of English or ChatGPT: Who thinks better?
Article in F1000Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Non-native speakers of English or ChatGPT: Who thinks better?F1000Research · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to answer the following major question: Who thinks better, non-native speakers of English or ChatGPT?. It provides evidence from processing and interpreting center-embedding English constructions that the human brain surpasses ChatGPT and that ChatGPT cannot be regarded as a theory of language. Methods: Fifteen non-native English speakers were recruited as participants. A center-embedding English sentence was presented to both the study participants and the ChatGPT. The ability of the ChatGPT to predict and remember was also tested. Results: The study findings reveal that the human brain is still far ahead of Large Language Models, specifically ChatGPT, even in the case of non-native speakers of L2 English. They also showed ChatGPT's inability to predict and remember. Conclusions: The study concludes that the human brain's ability to process and interpret natural language data and to predict and remember is unique and that ChatGPT still lags behind this unique human ability.
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.