ReviewTrends in cognitive sciences2026
To model human linguistic prediction, make LLMs less superhuman.
Review in Trends in cognitive sciences, 2026. 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.
- Eye movements reveal a dissociation between prediction and structural processing difficulty in language comprehension.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When we read, we make predictions about upcoming words; these predictions influence our reading behavior. The success of large language models (LLMs), which, like humans, make predictions about upcoming words, has motivated their use as models of human linguistic prediction. Surprisingly, in the last few years, as LLMs' ability to predict the next word has improved, their ability to explain reading behavior has declined. We argue this is because current LLMs can predict upcoming words much better than human readers can. This 'superhumanness' is driven by LLMs' extensive training data, stronger long-term memory of training examples, and stronger short-term memory. We advocate for LLMs with human-like memory and for new experiments to measure the alignment between humans and LLMs, and we outline directions toward achieving these goals.
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.