ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Successive-cyclic movement in humans and neural language models: testing wh-filler-gap dependencies.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates whether auto-regressive language models (GPT-2, GPT-Neo, OPT) replicate human-like sensitivity to covert intermediate phrasal structures (CP vs. NP) during the processing of wh-filler-gap dependencies. We extend this inquiry to backward sluicing, an elliptical construction that provides a robust test for the representation of abstract syntactic structure. Across two experiments measuring processing difficulty via surprisal, we found a significant divergence from established human processing patterns. We found that the models failed to reproduce the human processing facilitation for both canonical and elided dependencies. One model, in fact, showed an inverse effect, a pattern suggesting a reliance on surface-level cues rather than abstract hierarchical representations. We take these findings as evidence that the tested GPT-style models are insufficient for deriving knowledge of covert syntactic structures. This failure lends empirical support to the Poverty of the Stimulus (PoS) argument, and also highlights a significant gap in the cognitive plausibility of contemporary NLMs as models of human syntactic competence.
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.