ArticleCommunications biology2025
Generative language reconstruction from brain recordings.
Article in Communications biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Linguistics and human brain: a perspective of computational neuroscience.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2026Review
- Imagined Speech Brain-Computer Interface: A Task-Oriented Review of Neural Decoding.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- HAMAgent: human assisted multiagent system for emotion recognition and digital health-a survey and preliminary study.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Progress, challenges and future of linguistic neural decoding with deep learning.Communications biology · 2025Review
- Generative language reconstruction from brain recordings.Communications biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Language reconstruction from non-invasive brain recordings has been a long-standing challenge. Existing research has addressed this challenge with a classification setup, where a set of language candidates are pre-constructed and then matched with the representation decoded from brain recordings. Here, we propose a method that addresses language reconstruction through auto-regressive generation, which directly uses the representation decoded from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as the input for a large language model (LLM), mitigating the need for pre-constructed candidates. While an LLM can already generate high-quality content, our approach produces results more closely aligned with the visual or auditory language stimuli in response to which brain recordings are sampled, especially for content deemed "surprising" for the LLM. Furthermore, we show that the proposed approach can be used in an auto-regressive manner to reconstruct a 10 min-long language stimulus. Our method outperforms or is comparable to previous classification-based methods under different task settings, with the added benefit of estimating the likelihood of generating any semantic content. Our findings demonstrate the effectiveness of employing brain language interfaces in a generative setup and delineate a powerful and efficient means for mapping functional representations of language perception in the brain.
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.