Interpreting Brain Responses to Language with Sparse Features from Language Models
For cognitive neuroscientists, this work provides a method to interpret neural responses to language, showing nontrivial correspondence between brain and LM representations.
The study introduces Augmented Sparse Encoding Models to interpret brain responses to language using sparse features from language models, finding that brain responses are best explained by general LM features rather than arbitrary ones, and revealing a previously uncharacterized voxel population tuned to people-related content.
A central goal of cognitive neuroscience is to characterize the features that are represented by human language cortex. Artificial language models (LMs) have emerged as a powerful tool to address this challenge, but studies relating biological and artificial representations are often criticized as relating one black box to another. The present work introduces Augmented Sparse Encoding Models, an encoding framework that replaces dense LM hidden states with hierarchically-organized sparse autoencoder (SAE) features, while explicitly including surprisal as a predictor. Using this approach, we (i) produce interpretations of neural responses and (ii) test whether model-brain alignment reflects primary or idiosyncratic variation in LM representations. Using a high-field 7T fMRI dataset of eight participants listening to 200 linguistically diverse sentences, we first validate our modeling framework by recovering previous interpretations of voxel populations tuned to processing difficulty and meaning abstractness. We then interpret a previously-uncharacterized (but reliable) voxel population and find that it is tuned to people-related content. Next, we show that the fronto-temporal human language network is predicted by a common set of features across its constituent regions, but find that frontal regions are relatively well-explained by surprisal alone, even in the absence of LM-based features. Finally, we show that brain responses during language processing are not merely predictable from an arbitrary set of LM features. Rather, brain responses are best explained by the features that tend to capture the most general information encoded in LM representations, suggesting a nontrivial correspondence between brain and LM language representation.