In reading garden-path sentences, people must resolve competing interpretations, though initial misinterpretations can linger despite reanalysis. This study examines the role of inhibitory control (IC) in managing these misinterpretations among Chinese-English bilinguals. Using self-paced reading tasks, we investigated how IC influences recovery from garden-path sentences in Chinese (L1) and its interaction with language proficiency during English (L2) processing. Results indicate that IC does not affect garden-path recovery in Chinese, suggesting reliance on semantic context may reduce the need for IC. In contrast, findings for English L2 learners reveal a complex relationship between language proficiency and IC: Participants with low L2 proficiency but high IC showed lingering misinterpretations, while those with high proficiency exhibited none. These results support and extend the Model of Cognitive Control (Ness et al., 2023). Moreover, our comparison of three Stroop task versions identifies L1 colour-word Stroop task as the preferred measure of IC in bilingual research.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive alignment with human cognitive processes, raising questions about the extent of their similarity to human cognition. This study investigates whether LLMs, specifically ChatGPT, possess metacognitive monitoring abilities akin to humans-particularly in predicting memory performance on an item-by-item basis. We employed a cross-agent prediction model to compare the metacognitive performance of humans and ChatGPT in a language-based memory task involving garden-path sentences preceded by either fitting or unfitting context sentences. Both humans and ChatGPT rated the memorability of these sentences; humans then completed a surprise recognition memory test. Our findings reveal a significant positive relationship between humans' memorability ratings and their actual recognition performance, indicating reliable metacognitive monitoring. In contrast, ChatGPT did not exhibit a similar predictive capability. Bootstrapping analyses demonstrated that none of the GPT models tested (GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-4-turbo, GPT-4o) could accurately predict human memory performance on a per-item basis. This suggests that, despite their advanced language processing abilities and alignment with human cognition at the object level, current LLMs lack the metacognitive mechanisms that enable humans to anticipate their memory performance. These results highlight a fundamental difference between human and AI cognition at the metacognitive level. Addressing this gap is crucial for developing AI systems capable of effective self-monitoring and adaptation to human needs, thereby enhancing human-AI interactions across domains such as education and personalized learning.

When reading temporarily ambiguous garden-path sentences, misinterpretations sometimes linger past the point of disambiguation. This phenomenon has traditionally been studied in psycholinguistic experiments using online measures such as reading times and offline measures such as comprehension questions. Here, we investigate the processing of garden-path sentences and the fate of lingering misinterpretations using four large language models (LLMs): GPT-2, LLaMA-2, Flan-T5, and RoBERTa. The overall goal is to evaluate whether humans and LLMs are aligned in their processing of garden-path sentences and in the lingering misinterpretations past the point of disambiguation, especially when extra-syntactic information (e.g., a comma delimiting a clause boundary) is present to guide processing. We address this goal using 24 garden-path sentences that have optional transitive and reflexive verbs leading to temporary ambiguities. For each sentence, there are a pair of comprehension questions corresponding to the misinterpretation and the correct interpretation. In three experiments, we (1) measure the dynamic semantic interpretations of LLMs using the question-answering task; (2) track whether these models shift their implicit parse tree at the point of disambiguation (or by the end of the sentence); and (3) visualize the model components that attend to disambiguating information when processing the question probes. These experiments show promising alignment between humans and LLMs in the processing of garden-path sentences, especially when extra-syntactic information is available to guide processing.

Large language models (LLMs) are demonstrating remarkable capabilities across various tasks despite lacking a foundation in human cognition. This raises the question: can these models, beyond simply mimicking human language patterns, offer insights into the mechanisms underlying human cognition? This study explores the ability of ChatGPT to predict human performance in a language-based memory task. Building upon theories of text comprehension, we hypothesize that recognizing ambiguous sentences (e.g., "Because Bill drinks wine is never kept in the house") is facilitated by preceding them with contextually relevant information. Participants, both human and ChatGPT, were presented with pairs of sentences. The second sentence was always a garden-path sentence designed to be inherently ambiguous, while the first sentence either provided a fitting (e.g., "Bill has chronic alcoholism") or an unfitting context (e.g., "Bill likes to play golf"). We measured both human's and ChatGPT's ratings of sentence relatedness, ChatGPT's memorability ratings for the garden-path sentences, and humans' spontaneous memory for the garden-path sentences. The results revealed a striking alignment between ChatGPT's assessments and human performance. Sentences deemed more related and assessed as being more memorable by ChatGPT were indeed better remembered by humans, even though ChatGPT's internal mechanisms likely differ significantly from human cognition. This finding, which was confirmed with a robustness check employing synonyms, underscores the potential of generative AI models to predict human performance accurately. We discuss the broader implications of these findings for leveraging LLMs in the development of psychological theories and for gaining a deeper understanding of human cognition.

Last week, Google released Parsey McParseface, a funny name for a state-of-the-art tool aimed at one of the most difficult problems in artificial intelligence. For all that computers have accomplished in the past five years, from winning on "Jeopardy!" to defeating a Go grandmaster, they are still terrible at figuring out what people are saying. Language is one of the most complex tasks that humans perform. That's why there has been such a hullaballo over McParseface, which is pretty much a glorified sentence diagrammer. McParseface does what most students learn to do in elementary school.

Last week, Google released Parsey McParseface, a funny name for a state-of-the-art tool aimed at one of the most difficult problems in artificial intelligence. For all that computers have accomplished in the past five years, from winning on "Jeopardy!" to defeating a Go grandmaster, they are still terrible at figuring out what people are saying. Language is one of the most complex tasks that humans perform. That's why there has been such a hullaballo over McParseface, which is pretty much a glorified sentence diagrammer. McParseface does what most students learn to do in elementary school.

Language comprehension in humans is significantly constrained by memory, yet rapid, highly incremental, and capable of utilizing a wide range of contextual information to resolve ambiguity and form expectations about future input. In contrast, most of the leading psycholinguistic models and fielded algorithms for natural language parsing are non-incremental, have run time superlinear in input length, and/or enforce structural locality constraints on probabilistic dependencies between events. We present a new limited-memory model of sentence comprehension which involves an adaptation of the particle filter, a sequential Monte Carlo method, to the problem of incremental parsing. We show that this model can reproduce classic results in online sentence comprehension, and that it naturally provides the first rational account of an outstanding problem in psycholinguistics, in which the preferred alternative in a syntactic ambiguity seems to grow more attractive over time even in the absence of strong disambiguating information.