Lexical semantic content, not syntactic structure, is the main contributor to ANN-brain similarity of fMRI responses in the language network
Carina KaufiD, Greta TuckuteiD, Roger LévyiD, Jacob AndreasiD, Evelina G. FedorenkoiD
Abstract
Representations from artificial neural network (ANN) language models have been shown to predict human brain activity in the language network. To understand what aspects of linguistic stimuli contribute to ANN-to-brain similarity, we used an fMRI dataset of responses to n=627 naturalistic English sentences (Pereira et al., 2018) and systematically manipulated the stimuli for which ANN representations were extracted. In particular, we i) perturbed sentences word order, ii) removed different subsets of words, or iii) replaced sentences with other sentences of varying semantic similarity. We found that the lexical semantic content of the sentence (largely carried by content words) rather than the sentences syntactic form (conveyed via word order or function words) is primarily responsible for the ANN-to-brain similarity. In follow-up analyses, we found that perturbation manipulations that adversely affect brain predictivity also lead to more divergent representations in the ANNs embedding space and decrease the ANNs ability to predict upcoming tokens in those stimuli. Further, results are robust to whether the mapping model is trained on intact or perturbed stimuli, and whether the ANN sentence representations are conditioned on the same linguistic context that humans saw. The critical result--that lexical- semantic content is the main contributor to the similarity between ANN representations and neural ones--aligns with the idea that the goal of the human language system is to extract meaning from linguistic strings. Finally, this work highlights the strength of systematic experimental manipulations for evaluating how close we are to accurate and generalizable models of the human language network.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 39
- FWCI
- 5.68
- Field percentile
- top 3%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- 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
- Graded sensitivity to structure and meaning throughout the human language network
Cory Shain, Hope Kean, … Evelina G. Fedorenko·Journal of Cognitive NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2024
- Driving and suppressing the human language network using large language models
Greta Tuckute, Aalok Sathe, … Evelina G. Fedorenko·Nature Human BehaviourPeer-reviewed·Jan 3, 2024
- Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network
Evelina G. Fedorenko, Idan Blank, … Zachary Mineroff·CognitionPeer-reviewed·Jun 20, 2020
- Language processing in brains and deep neural networks: computational convergence and its limits
Charlotte Caucheteux, Jean-Rémi King·bioRxiv·Jul 3, 2020
- The language network reliably 'tracks' naturalistic meaningful non-verbal stimuli
Yotaro Sueoka, Alexander M. Paunov, … Evelina G. Fedorenko·Neurobiology of LanguagePeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2024
- Hierarchical Signatures of Language in the Human Brain
Nicole Eichert, Charlotte Favre, … Boris C. Bernhardt·bioRxiv·Feb 16, 2026