# Modeling cognitive processes of natural reading with transformer-based Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.11485 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.11485/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 7 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 May 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Regularizing and Optimizing LSTM Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1708.02182/) (2017)
- [Interpreting and improving natural-language processing (in machines) with natural language-processing (in the brain)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.11833/) (2019)
- [Language Models Explain Word Reading Times Better Than Empirical Predictability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.01128/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) have led to the development of highly sophisticated language models for text generation. In parallel, neuroscience has increasingly employed these models to explore cognitive processes involved in language comprehension. Previous research has shown that models such as N-grams and LSTM networks can partially account for predictability effects in explaining eye movement behaviors, specifically Gaze Duration, during reading. In this study, we extend these findings by evaluating transformer-based models (GPT2, LLaMA-7B, and LLaMA2-7B) to further investigate this relationship. Our results indicate that these architectures outperform earlier models in explaining the variance in Gaze Durations recorded from Rioplantense Spanish readers. However, similar to previous studies, these models still fail to account for the entirety of the variance captured by human predictability. These findings suggest that, despite their advancements, state-of-the-art language models continue to predict language in ways that differ from human readers.