Statistical or Embodied? Comparing Colorseeing, Colorblind, Painters, and Large Language Models in Their Processing of Color Metaphors

IF 2.3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Ethan O. Nadler, Douglas Guilbeault, Sofronia M. Ringold, T. R. Williamson, Antoine Bellemare-Pepin, Iulia M. Comșa, Karim Jerbi, Srini Narayanan, Lisa Aziz-Zadeh
{"title":"Statistical or Embodied? Comparing Colorseeing, Colorblind, Painters, and Large Language Models in Their Processing of Color Metaphors","authors":"Ethan O. Nadler,&nbsp;Douglas Guilbeault,&nbsp;Sofronia M. Ringold,&nbsp;T. R. Williamson,&nbsp;Antoine Bellemare-Pepin,&nbsp;Iulia M. Comșa,&nbsp;Karim Jerbi,&nbsp;Srini Narayanan,&nbsp;Lisa Aziz-Zadeh","doi":"10.1111/cogs.70083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Can metaphorical reasoning involving embodied experience—such as color perception—be learned from the statistics of language alone? Recent work finds that colorblind individuals robustly understand and reason abstractly about color, implying that color associations in everyday language might contribute to the metaphorical understanding of color. However, it is unclear how much colorblind individuals’ understanding of color is driven by language versus their limited (but no less embodied) visual experience. A more direct test of whether language supports the acquisition of humans’ understanding of color is whether large language models (LLMs)—those trained purely on text with no visual experience—can nevertheless learn to generate consistent and coherent metaphorical responses about color. Here, we conduct preregistered surveys that compare colorseeing adults, colorblind adults, and LLMs in how they (1) associate colors to words that lack established color associations and (2) interpret conventional and novel color metaphors. Colorblind and colorseeing adults exhibited highly similar and replicable color associations with novel words and abstract concepts. Yet, while GPT (a popular LLM) also generated replicable color associations with impressive consistency, its associations departed considerably from colorseeing and colorblind participants. Moreover, GPT frequently failed to generate coherent responses about its own metaphorical color associations when asked to invert its color associations or explain novel color metaphors in context. Consistent with this view, painters who regularly work with color pigments were more likely than all other groups to understand novel color metaphors using embodied reasoning. Thus, embodied experience may play an important role in metaphorical reasoning about color and the generation of conceptual connections between embodied associations.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"49 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70083","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Can metaphorical reasoning involving embodied experience—such as color perception—be learned from the statistics of language alone? Recent work finds that colorblind individuals robustly understand and reason abstractly about color, implying that color associations in everyday language might contribute to the metaphorical understanding of color. However, it is unclear how much colorblind individuals’ understanding of color is driven by language versus their limited (but no less embodied) visual experience. A more direct test of whether language supports the acquisition of humans’ understanding of color is whether large language models (LLMs)—those trained purely on text with no visual experience—can nevertheless learn to generate consistent and coherent metaphorical responses about color. Here, we conduct preregistered surveys that compare colorseeing adults, colorblind adults, and LLMs in how they (1) associate colors to words that lack established color associations and (2) interpret conventional and novel color metaphors. Colorblind and colorseeing adults exhibited highly similar and replicable color associations with novel words and abstract concepts. Yet, while GPT (a popular LLM) also generated replicable color associations with impressive consistency, its associations departed considerably from colorseeing and colorblind participants. Moreover, GPT frequently failed to generate coherent responses about its own metaphorical color associations when asked to invert its color associations or explain novel color metaphors in context. Consistent with this view, painters who regularly work with color pigments were more likely than all other groups to understand novel color metaphors using embodied reasoning. Thus, embodied experience may play an important role in metaphorical reasoning about color and the generation of conceptual connections between embodied associations.

统计的还是具体的?色盲、色盲、画家和大语言模型在色彩隐喻加工中的比较
涉及具体经验的隐喻推理——比如颜色感知——能仅仅从语言统计中学习吗?最近的研究发现,色盲个体对颜色有很强的理解和抽象推理能力,这意味着日常语言中的颜色联想可能有助于对颜色的隐喻理解。然而,目前尚不清楚色盲个体对颜色的理解在多大程度上是由语言驱动的,而不是由他们有限的(但同样体现的)视觉体验驱动的。关于语言是否支持人类对颜色理解的一个更直接的测试是,大型语言模型(llm)——那些纯粹通过文本训练而没有视觉经验的模型——是否能够学会产生关于颜色的一致和连贯的隐喻反应。在这里,我们进行了预先登记的调查,比较了色觉成年人,色盲成年人和法学硕士如何(1)将颜色与缺乏既定颜色关联的单词联系起来;(2)解释传统的和新颖的颜色隐喻。色盲和有色觉的成年人对新单词和抽象概念表现出高度相似和可复制的颜色关联。然而,尽管GPT(一种流行的法学硕士)也产生了令人印象深刻的一致性的可复制的颜色关联,但它的关联与色盲和色盲的参与者有很大的不同。此外,当被要求在语境中反转其颜色联想或解释新颖的颜色隐喻时,GPT经常不能对其自身的隐喻颜色联想产生连贯的反应。与这一观点相一致的是,经常使用颜料的画家比其他所有群体都更有可能使用具身推理来理解新的颜色隐喻。因此,具身经验可能在颜色隐喻推理和具身联想之间概念联系的产生中发挥重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信