Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34817867›Full record

ArticlePsychophysiology2022

Neural correlates of word representation vectors in natural language processing models: Evidence from representational similarity analysis of event-related brain potentials.

Taiqi He, Megan A Boudewyn, John E Kiat, Kenji Sagae, Steven J Luck

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychophysiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A population vector model of visual working memory for real-world scenes.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2026
    Article
  2. A Population Vector Model of Visual Working Memory for Real-World Scenes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Taiqi HeCenter for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7122-3493
Megan A BoudewynDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, USA.
John E KiatCenter for Mind & Brain, University of California, Davis, California, USA.
Kenji SagaeDepartment of Linguistics, University of California, Davis, California, USA.
Steven J LuckCenter for Mind & Brain, University of California, Davis, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3725-1474
University of California, Davis · USUniversity of California, Santa Cruz · US

Funding

Visual Working Memory: Representation and ProcessR01MH076226 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI LUCK, STEVEN J · 2006 to 2020
$4.5M
ERPLAB: Extensible, open source software for analysis of event-related potentialsR01MH087450 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI LUCK, STEVEN J · 2010 to 2025
$2.7M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH076226NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH087450
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Natural language processing models based on machine learning (ML-NLP models) have been developed to solve practical problems, such as interpreting an Internet search query. These models are not intended to reflect human language comprehension mechanisms, and the word representations used by ML-NLP models and human brains might therefore be quite different. However, because ML-NLP models are trained with the same kinds of inputs that humans must process, and they must solve many of the same computational problems as the human brain, ML-NLP models and human brains may end up with similar word representations. To distinguish between these hypotheses, we used representational similarity analysis to compare the representational geometry of word representations in two ML-NLP models with the representational geometry of the human brain, as indexed with event-related potentials (ERPs). Participants listened to stories while the electroencephalogram was recorded. We extracted averaged ERPs for each of the 100 words that occurred most frequently in the stories, and we calculated the similarity of the neural response for each pair of words. We compared this 100 × 100 similarity matrix to the 100 × 100 similarity matrix for the word pairs according to two ML-NLP models. We found significant representational similarity between the neural data and each ML-NLP model, beginning within 250 ms of word onset. These results indicate that ML-NLP systems that are designed to solve practical technology problems have a representational geometry that is correlated with that of the human brain, presumably because both are influenced by the structural properties and statistics of language.

Indexed as

Machine LearningNatural Language ProcessingSemanticsBrainElectroencephalographyEvoked PotentialsHumansNerve NetYoung Adultdeep neural networksERPsmachine learningmethodsrepresentational similarity analysisRSAword embeddings

Identifiers

PMID34817867
PMCPMC8810574
OpenAlexW3215140012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.