Pith. sign in

REVIEW

From Language to Language-ish: How Brain-Like is an LSTM's Representation of Nonsensical Language Stimuli?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2010.07435 v1 pith:B3OU6O4V submitted 2020-10-14 cs.CL cs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords languagebrainlstmnonsensicalactivityreactionrepresentationrepresentations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The representations generated by many models of language (word embeddings, recurrent neural networks and transformers) correlate to brain activity recorded while people read. However, these decoding results are usually based on the brain's reaction to syntactically and semantically sound language stimuli. In this study, we asked: how does an LSTM (long short term memory) language model, trained (by and large) on semantically and syntactically intact language, represent a language sample with degraded semantic or syntactic information? Does the LSTM representation still resemble the brain's reaction? We found that, even for some kinds of nonsensical language, there is a statistically significant relationship between the brain's activity and the representations of an LSTM. This indicates that, at least in some instances, LSTMs and the human brain handle nonsensical data similarly.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools