↓ Skip to main content

Implicit Perception of Differences between NLP‐Produced and Human‐Produced Language in the Mentalizing Network

Overview of attention for article published in Advanced Science, February 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Implicit Perception of Differences between NLP‐Produced and Human‐Produced Language in the Mentalizing Network
Published in
Advanced Science, February 2023
DOI 10.1002/advs.202203990
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Natural language processing (NLP) is central to the communication with machines and among ourselves, and NLP research field has long sought to produce human-quality language. Identification of informative criteria for measuring NLP-produced language quality will support development of ever-better NLP tools. The authors hypothesize that mentalizing network neural activity may be used to distinguish NLP-produced language from human-produced language, even for cases where human judges cannot subjectively distinguish the language source. Using the social chatbots Google Meena in English and Microsoft XiaoIce in Chinese to generate NLP-produced language, behavioral tests which reveal that variance of personality perceived from chatbot chats is larger than for human chats are conducted, suggesting that chatbot language usage patterns are not stable. Using an identity rating task with functional magnetic resonance imaging, neuroimaging analyses which reveal distinct patterns of brain activity in the mentalizing network including the DMPFC and rTPJ in response to chatbot versus human chats that cannot be distinguished subjectively are conducted. This study illustrates a promising empirical basis for measuring the quality of NLP-produced language: adding a judge's implicit perception as an additional criterion.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Unspecified 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 20 49%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 10%
Unspecified 3 7%
Computer Science 3 7%
Linguistics 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 21 51%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,165,708
of 32,097,703 outputs
Outputs from Advanced Science
#585
of 9,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,892
of 509,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advanced Science
#30
of 278 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,097,703 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 509,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 278 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.