ArticleHuman brain mapping2024
Unraveling lexical semantics in the brain: Comparing internal, external, and hybrid language models.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Lexical Representations in the Common and Specific Neural Networks for Visual, Phonological, and Semantic Processing in Chinese Reading.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- A large-scale database of Mandarin Chinese word associations from the Small World of Words Project.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Causal Explanation from Mild Cognitive Impairment Progression using Graph Neural Networks.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine · 2024Article
- Unraveling lexical semantics in the brain: Comparing internal, external, and hybrid language models.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- Greater neural pattern similarity to the native language is associated with better novel word learning.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
To explain how the human brain represents and organizes meaning, many theoretical and computational language models have been proposed over the years, varying in their underlying computational principles and in the language samples based on which they are built. However, how well they capture the neural encoding of lexical semantics remains elusive. We used representational similarity analysis (RSA) to evaluate to what extent three models of different types explained neural responses elicited by word stimuli: an External corpus-based word2vec model, an Internal free word association model, and a Hybrid ConceptNet model. Semantic networks were constructed using word relations computed in the three models and experimental stimuli were selected through a community detection procedure. The similarity patterns between language models and neural responses were compared at the community, exemplar, and word node levels to probe the potential hierarchical semantic structure. We found that semantic relations computed with the Internal model provided the closest approximation to the patterns of neural activation, whereas the External model did not capture neural responses as well. Compared with the exemplar and the node levels, community-level RSA demonstrated the broadest involvement of brain regions, engaging areas critical for semantic processing, including the angular gyrus, superior frontal gyrus and a large portion of the anterior temporal lobe. The findings highlight the multidimensional semantic organization in the brain which is better captured by Internal models sensitive to multiple modalities such as word association compared with External models trained on text corpora.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.