Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42798739›Full record

ArticleNeurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.)2026

Left-Right Asymmetry in Predicting Brain Activity From LLMs' Representations Emerges With Their Formal Linguistic Competence.

Laurent Bonnasse-Gahot, Christophe Pallier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Laurent Bonnasse-GahotCentre d'Analyse et de Mathématique Sociales, CNRS, EHESS, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2936-2780
Christophe PallierCognitive Neuroimaging Unit, CNRS, INSERM, CEA, Neurospin Center, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3324-666X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When humans and large language models (LLMs) process the same text, activations in the LLMs correlate with brain activity measured, e.g., using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Moreover, it has been shown that, as the training of an LLM progresses, the performance in predicting brain activity from its internal activations improves more in the left hemisphere than in the right one. The aim of the present work is to understand which kind of competence acquired by the LLMs underlies the emergence of this left-right asymmetry. Using the OLMo-2 7B language model at various training checkpoints and fMRI data from English participants, we compare the evolution of the left-right asymmetry in the correlation between brain activity and model predictions alongside performance on several benchmarks. We observe that the asymmetry co-emerges with the formal linguistic abilities of the LLM. These abilities are demonstrated in two ways: by the model's capacity to assign a higher probability to an acceptable sentence than to a grammatically unacceptable one within a minimal contrasting pair, and by its ability to produce well-formed text. By contrast, the left-right asymmetry does not align with the performance on arithmetic or Dyck language tasks; nor with text-based tasks involving world knowledge and reasoning. We generalize these results to another family of LLMs (Pythia) and two other languages, French and Chinese. Our observations indicate that the left-right asymmetry in brain predictivity matches the progress in formal linguistic competence.

Indexed as

brain lateralizationfMRIlanguage processinglarge language modelssyntaxtraining

Identifiers

PMID42798739
PMCPMC13612846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.