Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42646016›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2026

Cognitive Processes of Probabilistic Prediction in Reading: Language Model Surprisal Across Model Sizes, Token Granularity, and Reading Paradigms.

Shuting Liu, Yong Mei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Shuting LiuSchool of Foreign Languages, Hubei University, No. 368 Youyi Avenue, Wuchang District, Wuhan 430062, China.
Yong MeiSchool of Foreign Languages, Hubei University, No. 368 Youyi Avenue, Wuchang District, Wuhan 430062, China.

Funding

Research and Planning Fund for Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education of China 24YJA740034
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surprisal, the negative log probability of a word given its context, is the dominant computational metric for quantifying reading difficulty and a common item difficulty estimator in reading research. Yet how the language model family, surprisal granularity, and corpus type jointly shape the surprisal-reading time link remains unclear. We conducted a secondary analysis of two public English reading corpora: the Natural Stories Corpus (self-paced reading, 181 readers) and the Provo Corpus (eye tracking with cloze norms). Surprisal was computed from GPT 2 (Small, XL), Llama 2 (7B, 13B), and Llama 3 (8B), together with a 5-gram baseline and human cloze norms. Linear mixed-effects models tested the baseline contribution of neural surprisal, inverse scaling within model families, word-level versus sub-word aggregation, and the linking function shape. Neural surprisal contributed reliable variance above a strong baseline in both corpora. A clear inverse scaling pattern emerged: GPT 2 Small produced the largest fit improvements, exceeding GPT 2 XL, Llama 2 13B, and Llama 3 8B. Word-level aggregation outperformed sub-word aggregation, especially for measures of early lexical access. Non-parametric analyses supported an approximately linear linking function, and cloze norms carried information not fully captured by neural surprisal. These findings show that larger models are not automatically better cognitive models of reading and that surprisal granularity is not a neutral analytic choice.

Indexed as

cognitive processes of readingeye trackingGPT 2large language modelsLlamaNatural Stories CorpusProvo Corpusreading assessmentsurprisal

Identifiers

PMID42646016
PMCPMC13514107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.