大模型能模拟人类感官感知，但机制仍不同。

This study investigated whether multimodal large language models can achieve human-like sensory grounding by examining their ability to capture perceptual strength ratings across sensory modalities. We explored how model characteristics (size, multimodal capabilities, architectural generation) influence grounding performance, distributional factor dependencies (word frequency, embeddings, feature distances), and human-model processing differences. We evaluated 21 models from four families (GPT, Gemini, LLaMA, Qwen) using 3,611 words from the Lancaster Sensorimotor Norms through correlation, distance metrics, and qualitative analysis. Results showed that larger (6 out of 8 comparisons), multimodal (5 of 7), and newer models (5 of 8) generally outperformed their smaller, text-based, and older counterparts. Top models achieved 85-90% accuracy and 0.58-0.65 correlations with human ratings, demonstrating substantial similarity. Moreover, distributional factors showed minimal impact, not exceeding human dependency levels. However, despite strong alignment, models were not identical to humans, as even top performers showed differences in distance and correlation measures, with qualitative analysis revealing processing patterns related to absent sensory grounding. Additionally, it remains questionable whether introducing multimodality resolves this grounding deficit. Although multimodality improved performance, it seems to provide similar information as massive text rather than qualitatively different data, as benefits occurred across unrelated sensory dimensions and massive text-only models achieved comparable results. Our findings demonstrate that while advanced LLMs can approximate human sensory-linguistic associations through statistical learning, they still differ from human embodied cognition in processing mechanisms, even with multimodal integration.