Do VLMs Align Better with Humans than LLMs during Natural Reading?

Title:Do VLMs Align Better with Humans than LLMs during Natural Reading?

Abstract:Large language models have become increasingly useful computational models of human language processing, but it remains open whether vision-language learning makes text representations more human-like during natural reading. We address this question by comparing matched LLM and vision-language model pairs under strictly text-only input and evaluating alignment with human brain activity (whole-cortex fMRI) and human behavior (synchronized regressive saccades). We identify a selective, rather than global, effect of vision-language training on human-model alignment. In the two within-lineage model pairs, VLMs more accurately predicted human regressive saccades, whereas VLMs and LLMs showed comparable whole-cortex fMRI alignment. However, sentence-level analyses revealed that the VLM advantage in fMRI alignment increased with the visual evocative strength of the sentences. Together, these findings provide a controlled in-silico comparison of multimodal training histories, showing that vision-language pretraining selectively improves model-human alignment via reading behavior and visually grounded content.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Neurons and Cognition (q-bio.NC)

arXiv:2605.28818 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2605.28818v2 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.28818 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.