Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33753548›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2021

Deep Artificial Neural Networks Reveal a Distributed Cortical Network Encoding Propositional Sentence-Level Meaning.

Andrew James Anderson, Douwe Kiela, Jeffrey R Binder, Leonardo Fernandino, Colin J Humphries, Lisa L Conant, Rajeev D S Raizada, Scott Grimm, Edmund C Lalor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Disorganisation and depression: a re-examination of how we think and speak when depressed.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Neural encoding of semantic structures during sentence production.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Andrew James AndersonDepartment of Neuroscience, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14642 aander41@ur.rochester.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0316-9787
Douwe KielaFacebook AI Research, New York, New York 10003.
Jeffrey R BinderDepartment of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226.ORCID 0000-0002-2233-5640
Leonardo FernandinoDepartment of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226.
Colin J HumphriesDepartment of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226.ORCID 0000-0002-5131-8743
Lisa L ConantDepartment of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226.
Rajeev D S RaizadaDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627.ORCID 0000-0002-2784-1964
Scott GrimmDepartment of Linguistics, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627.
Edmund C LalorDepartment of Neuroscience, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14642.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding how and where in the brain sentence-level meaning is constructed from words presents a major scientific challenge. Recent advances have begun to explain brain activation elicited by sentences using vector models of word meaning derived from patterns of word co-occurrence in text corpora. These studies have helped map out semantic representation across a distributed brain network spanning temporal, parietal, and frontal cortex. However, it remains unclear whether activation patterns within regions reflect unified representations of sentence-level meaning, as opposed to superpositions of context-independent component words. This is because models have typically represented sentences as "bags-of-words" that neglect sentence-level structure. To address this issue, we interrogated fMRI activation elicited as 240 sentences were read by 14 participants (9 female, 5 male), using sentences encoded by a recurrent deep artificial neural-network trained on a sentence inference task (InferSent). Recurrent connections and nonlinear filters enable InferSent to transform sequences of word vectors into unified "propositional" sentence representations suitable for evaluating intersentence entailment relations. Using voxelwise encoding modeling, we demonstrate that InferSent predicts elements of fMRI activation that cannot be predicted by bag-of-words models and sentence models using grammatical rules to assemble word vectors. This effect occurs throughout a distributed network, which suggests that propositional sentence-level meaning is represented within and across multiple cortical regions rather than at any single site. In follow-up analyses, we place results in the context of other deep network approaches (ELMo and BERT) and estimate the degree of unpredicted neural signal using an "experiential" semantic model and cross-participant encoding.

Indexed as

LanguageNeural Networks, ComputerSemanticsAdultCerebral CortexComprehensionComputer SimulationFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedReadingYoung Adultdistributional semanticsfMRIlexical semanticssentence comprehensionvoxelwise encodingword embedding

Identifiers

PMID33753548
PMCPMC8176751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.