» Articles » PMID: 39876931

Divergences Between Language Models and Human Brains

Overview
Journal ArXiv
Date 2025 Jan 29
PMID 39876931
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Do machines and humans process language in similar ways? Recent research has hinted at the affirmative, showing that human neural activity can be effectively predicted using the internal representations of language models (LMs). Although such results are thought to reflect shared computational principles between LMs and human brains, there are also clear differences in how LMs and humans represent and use language. In this work, we systematically explore the divergences between human and machine language processing by examining the differences between LM representations and human brain responses to language as measured by Magnetoencephalography (MEG) across two datasets in which subjects read and listened to narrative stories. Using an LLM-based data-driven approach, we identify two domains that LMs do not capture well: and . We validate these findings with human behavioral experiments and hypothesize that the gap is due to insufficient representations of social/emotional and physical knowledge in LMs. Our results show that fine-tuning LMs on these domains can improve their alignment with human brain responses.

References
1.
Wehbe L, Murphy B, Talukdar P, Fyshe A, Ramdas A, Mitchell T . Simultaneously uncovering the patterns of brain regions involved in different story reading subprocesses. PLoS One. 2014; 9(11):e112575. PMC: 4245107. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112575. View

2.
Ravishankar S, Toneva M, Wehbe L . Single-Trial MEG Data Can Be Denoised Through Cross-Subject Predictive Modeling. Front Comput Neurosci. 2021; 15:737324. PMC: 8632362. DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2021.737324. View

3.
Halgren E, Dhond R, Christensen N, Van Petten C, Marinkovic K, Lewine J . N400-like magnetoencephalography responses modulated by semantic context, word frequency, and lexical class in sentences. Neuroimage. 2002; 17(3):1101-16. DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2002.1268. View

4.
Taulu S, Kajola M, Simola J . Suppression of interference and artifacts by the Signal Space Separation Method. Brain Topogr. 2004; 16(4):269-75. DOI: 10.1023/b:brat.0000032864.93890.f9. View

5.
Epstein R, Kanwisher N . A cortical representation of the local visual environment. Nature. 1998; 392(6676):598-601. DOI: 10.1038/33402. View