Statistical or Embodied? Comparing Colorseeing, Colorblind, Painters, and Large Language Models in Their Processing of Color Metaphors
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".