ArticleFrontiers in systems neuroscience2025
Will multimodal large language models ever achieve deep understanding of the world?
Article in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 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.
- The hierarchical levels of information activities in the subject's psychology and cognition.Frontiers in psychology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite impressive performance in various tasks, large language models (LLMs) are subject to the symbol grounding problem, so from the cognitive science perspective, one can argue that they are merely statistics-driven distributional models without a deeper understanding. Modern multimodal versions of LLMs (MLLMs) are trying to avoid this problem by linking language knowledge with other modalities such as vision (Vision Language Models called VLM) or action (Vision Language Action Models called VLA) when, for instance, a robotic agent, is acting in the world. If eventually successful, MLLMs could be taken as pathway for symbol grounding. In this work, we explore the extent to which MLLMs integrated with embodied agents can achieve such grounded understanding through interaction with the physical world. We argue that closing the gap between symbolic tokens, neural representations, and embodied experience will require deeper developmental integration of continuous sensory data, goal-directed behavior, and adaptive neural learning in real-world environments. We raise a concern that MLLMs do not currently achieve a human-like level of deep understanding, largely because their random learning trajectory deviates significantly from human cognitive development. Humans typically acquire knowledge incrementally, building complex concepts upon simpler ones in a structured developmental progression. In contrast, MLLMs are often trained on vast, randomly ordered datasets. This non-developmental approach, which circumvents a structured simple-to-complex conceptual scaffolding, inhibits the ability to build a deep and meaningful grounded knowledge base, posing a significant challenge to achieving human-like semantic comprehension.
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.