ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Contextual assembly of lexical functions in large language models.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Neural network modeling has played a central role in psycholinguistic studies of lexical processing, but the recent advent of large language models (LLMs) offers a different approach that may yield new insights into the mental lexicon. Four LLMs were prompted across three experiments to test how they generate psycholinguistic ratings of words in comparison with humans. LLM ratings, averaged across varying list contexts, were found to be highly correlated with human ratings, and differences in correlation strengths were partly explained by differences in rating ambiguity. LLM context manipulations strengthened correlations with human ratings through better calibration, and variability in LLM ratings was correlated with human inter-rater variability. Additional results from testing LLM generation of word naming latencies showed functional deviations from factors that underlie human word naming, indicating that lexical function assembly in LLMs is currently limited by patterns of co-occurrence in textual data. Patterns at finer-grained timescales are needed in the training data to model online lexical processes. We conclude that LLMs used context to guide the assembly of generalized lexical functions, rather than recalling ratings and latencies from training data.
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.