ArticleCognitive science2025
Can Large Language Models Simulate Spoken Human Conversations?
Article in Cognitive science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterizing the spiral: potential mechanisms in AI-associated delusions.NPP - digital psychiatry and neuroscience · 2026Review
- Who Accommodates Whom? Bidirectional Linguistic Accommodation and Progressive Interpersonal Convergence in Human-AI Conversations.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) can emulate many aspects of human cognition and have been heralded as a potential paradigm shift. They are proficient in chat-based conversation, but little is known about their ability to simulate spoken conversation. We investigated whether LLMs can simulate spoken human conversation. In Study 1, we compared transcripts of human telephone conversations from the Switchboard (SB) corpus to six corpora of transcripts generated by two powerful LLMs, GPT-4 and Claude Sonnet 3.5, and two open-source LLMs, Vicuna and Wayfarer, using different prompts designed to mimic SB participants' instructions. We compared LLM and SB conversations in terms of alignment (conceptual, syntactic, and lexical), coordination markers, and coordination of openings and closings. We also documented qualitative features by which LLM conversations differ from SB conversations. In Study 2, we assessed whether humans can distinguish transcripts produced by LLMs from those of SB conversations. LLM conversations exhibited exaggerated alignment (and an increase in alignment as conversation unfolded) relative to human conversations, different and often inappropriate use of coordination markers, and were dissimilar to human conversations in openings and closings. LLM conversations did not consistently pass for SB conversations. Spoken conversations generated by LLMs are both qualitatively and quantitatively different from those of humans. This issue may evolve with better LLMs and more training on spoken conversation, but may also result from key differences between spoken conversation and chat.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.