bioRxivNeurosciencePreprint
Head-level lesion-symptom mapping of picture naming in vision-language models
Samaneh NematiiD, Roger Newman‐NorlundiD, Saeed Ahmadi, Xiang Guan, Kalil WarreniD, Yong YangiD, Srihari NelakuditiiD, Chris RordeniD, Leonardo BonilhaiD, Julius FridrikssoniD
Abstract
Researchers in artificial intelligence increasingly intervene on language models to study how their functions are organized, silencing weights and attention components in ways reminiscent of the brain lesions long used to map language in post-stroke aphasia. Under this program of mechanistic interpretability, a common move is to ablate an attention head and read the resulting drop in a behavior as evidence that the head implements it. How much that move can establish about where a behavior is computed remains unclear, because a head whose removal disrupts a behavior is necessary for it but need not be the site where it is computed. We examined this question for the picture naming task, taking the loss of naming (anomia) that defines aphasia as the behavior of interest. Across six vision-language models, spanning three language backbones and a range of parameter scales, we ablated each attention head in turn during single-word picture naming and measured accuracy before and after. The degree of localization varied widely across models. In LLaVA-1.6-Vicuna-13B, a single early head (layer 0, head 20) was necessary: removing it alone reduced naming accuracy from 0.99 to 0.006. The same head was not sufficient, because retaining it while ablating the other 1{,}599 heads also produced 0\% accuracy. Two Mistral-backbone models (LLaVA-Mistral-7B and Idefics2-8B) had no critical head. An early-layer dependence was present in every model but varied in strength, whereas dependence on any single head ranged from dominant to absent. Within Qwen2.5-VL, a dominant head was present in the 7B model but not the 3B model, indicating that this concentration emerged with scale rather than being fixed across a model family, and it was not explained by attention type. These results show that ablating the head whose removal disrupts naming does not establish that the head computes the behavior, that the result generalizes across models, or that the behavior localizes to a head at all.
- research focus: benchmarking
- research focus: differential expression
- research focus: gene regulatory network inference
- approach: experimental assay
- Citations
- 0
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
- Monkey See, Model Knew: Large Language Models Accurately Predict Visual Brain Responses in Humans AND Non-Human Primates
Colin Conwell, Emalie McMahon, … Leyla Işık·bioRxiv·Mar 5, 2025
- Emergent modularity in large language models: Insights from aphasia simulations
Chengcheng Wang, Zhiyu Fan, … Jixing Li·bioRxiv·Feb 22, 2025
- Human-like meaning maps from single-prompt VLM ratings of local scene meaning
Katarzyna Jurewicz, Yohaï-Eliel Berreby, B. Suresh Krishna·bioRxiv·Sep 3, 2026
- The language network is recruited but not required for non-verbal event semantics
Anna Aleksandrovna Ivanova, Zachary Mineroff, … Evelina G. Fedorenko·bioRxiv·Sep 2, 2020
- Semantic Information Orthogonal to Visual Features Peaks in LateralOccipitotemporal Cortex
Arun Ram Ponnambalam, Krishnan Venkiteswaran Pottore·bioRxiv·Mar 15, 2026
- Convergence of Heteromodal Lexical Retrieval in the Lateral Prefrontal Cortex
Alexander A. Aabedi, Sofia Kakaizada, … Shawn L. Hervey‐Jumper·Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewed·Mar 18, 2021