Abstract rule generalization for composing novel meaning recruits the frontoparietal control network
Xiaochen ZhengiD, Mona M. GarvertiD, Hanneke E.M. den OudeniD, Lisa I. HorstmaniD, David RichteriD, Roshan CoolsiD
Abstract
The ability to generalize previously learned knowledge to novel situations is crucial for adaptive behavior, representing a form of cognitive flexibility that is particularly relevant in language. Humans excel at combining linguistic building blocks to infer the meanings of novel compositional words, such as "un-reject-able-ish". How do we accomplish this? While recent research on compositional generalization in relational memory, action planning and vision strongly implicates a medial prefrontal-hippocampal network (Baram et al., 2021; Barron et al., 2020; Schwartenbeck et al., 2023), it remains unclear whether the same network supports compositional inference in language. To this end, we trained participants on an artificial language in which the meanings of compositional words could be derived from known stems and unknown affixes, using abstract affixation rules (e.g., "good-kla" which means "bad", where "-kla" reverses the meaning of the stem word "good"). According to these rules, word meaning depended on the sequential relation between the stem and the affix (i.e., pre- vs. post-stem). During fMRI, participants performed a semantic priming task, with novel compositional words as either sequential order congruent (e.g., "white-kla") or incongruent primes (e.g., "kla-white"), and synonyms of the composed meaning as targets ("black"). Our results show that the compositional process engages a broad temporoparietal network, including the hippocampus, while the composed meanings are represented in left-lateralized language areas. Notably, newly composed meanings were decodable already at the time of the prime. Finally, we found that the composition process recruits abstract structure rule representations in a lateral frontoparietal network, rather than the predicted medial frontotemporal network, perhaps because abstract rules in language are more readily formatted as production rules rather than as relational map structures.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 1
- Organism
- Assay
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- The Neural Consequences of Semantic Composition
Heather Bruett, Marc N. Coutanche·Journal of Cognitive NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Sep 30, 2025
- Differential contributions of left-hemispheric language regions to basic semantic composition
Astrid Graessner, Emiliano Zaccarella, Gesa Hartwigsen·Brain Structure and FunctionPeer-reviewed·Jan 30, 2021
- Composition is the core driver of the language-selective network
Francis Mollica, Evgeniia Diachek, … Evelina G. Fedorenko·Neurobiology of LanguagePeer-reviewed·Jan 16, 2020
- Integrating When and What Information in the Left Parietal Lobe Allows Language Rule Generalization
Joan Orpella, Pablo Ripollés, … Ruth de Diego‐Balaguer·PLoS BiologyPeer-reviewed·Nov 2, 2020
- Distinct roles of hippocampus and neocortex in symbolic compositional generalization
Zilu Liang, Leonie Glitz, … Christopher Summerfield·NeuronPeer-reviewed·Jun 1, 2026
- Compositional computations in the primate frontal cortex
Cheng Tang, Mehrdad Jazayeri·bioRxiv·Nov 6, 2026