Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38014759›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2024

Unraveling lexical semantics in the brain: Comparing internal, external, and hybrid language models.

Yang Yang, Luan Li, Simon de Deyne, Bing Li, Jing Wang, Qing Cai

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Causal Explanation from Mild Cognitive Impairment Progression using Graph Neural Networks.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Yang YangShanghai Key Laboratory of Brain Functional Genomics (Ministry of Education), Affiliated Mental Health Center (ECNU), Institute of Brain and Education Innovation, School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
Luan LiShanghai Key Laboratory of Brain Functional Genomics (Ministry of Education), Affiliated Mental Health Center (ECNU), Institute of Brain and Education Innovation, School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
Simon de DeyneSchool of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Bing LiUMR 9193-SCALab-Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, Université de Lille, CNRS, Lille, France.
Jing WangShanghai Key Laboratory of Brain Functional Genomics (Ministry of Education), Affiliated Mental Health Center (ECNU), Institute of Brain and Education Innovation, School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6022-8240
Qing CaiShanghai Key Laboratory of Brain Functional Genomics (Ministry of Education), Affiliated Mental Health Center (ECNU), Institute of Brain and Education Innovation, School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
Shanghai Changning Mental Health Center · CNCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

Basic Research Project of Shanghai Science and Technology Commission 19JC1410101Fundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China 31970987National Natural Science Foundation of China 32100857
6 · The paper itself

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

Brain MappingSemanticsBrainHumansLanguageMagnetic Resonance ImagingTemporal LobefMRIfree word associationlexical semanticsrepresentational similarity analysissemantic model

Identifiers

PMID38014759
PMCPMC10789206
OpenAlexW4389084170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.