ArticleNeurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
Surprisal From Language Models Can Predict ERPs in Processing Predicate-Argument Structures Only if Enriched by an Agent Preference Principle.
Article in Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Broadening the Agent Preference Hypothesis Through Experiencers: Eye-Tracking and EEG Evidence of Proto-Agents and Proto-Patients.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026Article
- The Agent Preference in Ontogeny: Predictability of Agent and Patient Roles in Child-Directed Utterances Across Languages.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- The effect of animacy on the agent preference: Self-paced reading evidence from Basque.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Mark the Unexpected! Animacy Preference and Directed Movement in Visual Language.Cognitive science · 2025Article
- Registered Report: Neural correlates of thematic role assignment for passives in Standard Indonesian.PloS one · 2025Article
- Humans and great apes visually track event roles in similar ways.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- A universal preference for animate agents in hominids.iScience · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Language models based on artificial neural networks increasingly capture key aspects of how humans process sentences. Most notably, model-based surprisals predict event-related potentials such as N400 amplitudes during parsing. Assuming that these models represent realistic estimates of human linguistic experience, their success in modeling language processing raises the possibility that the human processing system relies on no other principles than the general architecture of language models and on sufficient linguistic input. Here, we test this hypothesis on N400 effects observed during the processing of verb-final sentences in German, Basque, and Hindi. By stacking Bayesian generalised additive models, we show that, in each language, N400 amplitudes and topographies in the region of the verb are best predicted when model-based surprisals are complemented by an Agent Preference principle that transiently interprets initial role-ambiguous noun phrases as agents, leading to reanalysis when this interpretation fails. Our findings demonstrate the need for this principle independently of usage frequencies and structural differences between languages. The principle has an unequal force, however. Compared to surprisal, its effect is weakest in German, stronger in Hindi, and still stronger in Basque. This gradient is correlated with the extent to which grammars allow unmarked NPs to be patients, a structural feature that boosts reanalysis effects. We conclude that language models gain more neurobiological plausibility by incorporating an Agent Preference. Conversely, theories of human processing profit from incorporating surprisal estimates in addition to principles like the Agent Preference, which arguably have distinct evolutionary roots.
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.