Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39919742›Full record

ArticleCurrent biology : CB2025

Semantic language decoding across participants and stimulus modalities.

Jerry Tang, Alexander G Huth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current biology : CB, 2025. 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
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Semantic encoding of trauma memories in the hippocampus among individuals with PTSD.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Safeguarding Neural Data.Neurology · 2026
    Review
  4. Decoding concept representations in aphasia after stroke.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  5. Rapid cortical mapping with cross-participant encoding models.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026
    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

2 authors.

Jerry TangDepartment of Computer Science, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
Alexander G HuthDepartment of Computer Science, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA; Department of Neuroscience, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA. Electronic address: huth@cs.utexas.edu.

Funding

CRCNS: Discovering Computational Principles of Language Processing in the BrainR01DC020088 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI PESTILLI, FRANCO, WEHBE, LEILA · 2021 to 2025
$1.9M
Assessing semantic encoding and decoding models in stroke-induced aphasiaF32DC022178 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI Jerry Tang · 2024 to 2026
$225k
NIDCD NIH HHS F32 DC022178NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC020088
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain decoders that reconstruct language from semantic representations have the potential to improve communication for people with impaired language production. However, training a semantic decoder for a participant currently requires many hours of brain responses to linguistic stimuli, and people with impaired language production often also have impaired language comprehension. In this study, we tested whether language can be decoded from a goal participant without using any linguistic training data from that participant. We trained semantic decoders on brain responses from separate reference participants and then used functional alignment to transfer the decoders to the goal participant. Cross-participant decoder predictions were semantically related to the stimulus words, even when functional alignment was performed using movies with no linguistic content. To assess how much semantic representations are shared between language and vision, we compared functional alignment accuracy using story and movie stimuli and found that performance was comparable in most cortical regions. Finally, we tested whether cross-participant decoders could be robust to lesions by excluding brain regions from the goal participant prior to functional alignment and found that cross-participant decoders do not depend on data from any single brain region. These results demonstrate that cross-participant decoding can reduce the amount of linguistic training data required from a goal participant and potentially enable language decoding from participants who struggle with both language production and language comprehension.

Indexed as

BrainLanguageSemanticsAdultBrain MappingComprehensionFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleYoung AdultfMRIfunctional alignmentlanguagelanguage decodingsemantic decodingvision

Identifiers

PMID39919742
PMCPMC11903136

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.