Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42509529›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

Adding LLMs to the psycholinguistic norming toolbox: A practical guide to getting the most out of human ratings.

Javier Conde, María Grandury, Tairan Fu, Carlos Arriaga, Gonzalo Martínez, Thomas Clark, Sean Trott, Clarence Gerald Green, Pedro Reviriego, Marc Brysbaert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Javier CondeInformation Processing and Telecommunications Center (IPTC), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040, Madrid, Spain. javier.conde.diaz@upm.es.
María GranduryInformation Processing and Telecommunications Center (IPTC), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Tairan FuPolitecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Carlos ArriagaInformation Processing and Telecommunications Center (IPTC), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Gonzalo MartínezInformation Processing and Telecommunications Center (IPTC), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Thomas ClarkMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Sean TrottDepartment of Psychology, Rutgers University - Newark, Newark, NJ, USA.
Clarence Gerald GreenFaculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Pedro ReviriegoInformation Processing and Telecommunications Center (IPTC), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Marc BrysbaertDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

Agencia Estatal de Investigación PCI2024-153434Agencia Estatal de Investigación PID2022-136684OB-C22Chips Act Joint Undertaking 101140087
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Word-level psycholinguistic norms are necessary to test theories of language processing. However, obtaining such human-based measures is not always feasible or straightforward. One promising approach is to augment human norming datasets by using large language models (LLMs) to predict these characteristics directly, a practice that is rapidly gaining popularity in psycholinguistics and cognitive science. However, the novelty of this approach (and the relative inscrutability of LLMs) necessitates the adoption of rigorous methodologies. We discuss the range of possible approaches, and clarify limitations that are not immediately apparent. In this work, we present a comprehensive methodology for estimating word characteristics with LLMs, enriched with practical advice and lessons learned from our own experience. Our approach covers both the direct use of base LLMs and the fine-tuning of models, an alternative that can yield substantial performance gains in certain scenarios. A major emphasis in the guide is the need to validate LLM-generated data, at least with a small set of a few hundred human "gold standard" norms, before using the LLM-generated norms. We also present a software framework that implements our methodology and supports both commercial and open-weight models. We illustrate the proposed approach with a case study on estimating word familiarity in English. Using base models, we achieved a Spearman correlation of 0.8 with human ratings, which increased to 0.9 when employing fine-tuned models. This methodology, framework, and set of best practices can serve as a reference for future research on leveraging LLMs for psycholinguistic and lexical studies.

Indexed as

LanguagePsycholinguisticsHumansLarge Language ModelsFine-tuningLLMsTutorialWord features

Identifiers

PMID42509529
PMCPMC13407732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.