Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Improve Language Model and Brain Alignment via Associative Memory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that appending simulated associative memory to story stimuli improves how well language model activations predict fMRI brain responses, and that fine-tuning a large language model on associative content adds further gains…

desk verdict Augmentation result is promising but statistically thin; the SFT result is confounded by train/eval story overlap and needs a control before the 2-7% claim is credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13844 v1 pith:GQHRIJA7 submitted 2025-05-20 cs.CL

Congchi Yin , Yongpeng Zhang , Xuyun Wen , Piji Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords associativememorybrainalignmentfMRIencodingmodelslanguageinstructiontuningmedialtemporallobedataaugmentationLLaMA-2
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether language models align better with human brain activity when they are given access to associative memory, the process by which listeners link new speech to related knowledge. It answers yes in two ways: appending human- or GPT-4-written associated words or sentences to the story text raises the correlation between model activations and fMRI signals in regions tied to associative memory, working memory, and speech processing; and supervised fine-tuning of LLaMA-2 on a new 1,000-sample dataset, where prompts ask the model to output associated content, raises brain scores in the medial temporal lobe by 2–7%. The work matters because it offers a concrete, testable mechanism for improving brain-language alignment, and because random augmentation does not reproduce the gain, the effect is linked to associative content rather than simply longer input.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a linear encoding framework: ridge regression maps mean-pooled activations from a chosen Transformer layer to fMRI frames with a finite impulse response model, and the Pearson correlation between predicted and actual fMRI is the brain score. The associative memory score is the difference between the brain score with augmented text and the brain score on original text, and the instruction tuning score is the percentage gain after fine-tuning. The load-bearing maneuver is to place augmented association content at the end of the sentence that triggered it, with the same onset time as the last word, so the association signal lands in the same fMRI frames as the trigger. Low-rank adaptation (LoRA) and frozen-layer fine-tuning are the two training schemes used to adapt LLaMA-2 on the Association dataset.

What would settle it

Shift the onsets of the appended association content by one, two, or three fMRI TRs after the triggering word's offset and recompute the associative memory score; if the gain vanishes or becomes negative, the reported improvement depends on the simultaneous-onset assumption. A second check: replace the associated words with equally frequent but content-bearing unrelated words; if the gain persists, the effect is not specific to association.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that aligning language models to the brain can be improved by injecting associative content into the model's input, without changing the brain data. For the first research question, each story sentence that triggers association is augmented with associative words or sentences; the language model is then run on the augmented sequence, and its activations are mean-pooled into fMRI frames through a finite-impulse-response model and ridge regression. The resulting correlation, the brain score, rises in nine regions of interest including inferior and middle temporal regions, frontal and parietal regions, and the medial temporal lobe, with word-level human-annotated augmentation giving the strongest and most consistent gains and random augmentation giving none. For the second question, LLaMA-2 fine-tuned on the Association dataset using LoRA or frozen-layer training shows a 2% to 7% gain in medial temporal lobe score over the base model, and a 50% to 60% gain in the superior parietal lobule at the subject level.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is temporal: augmented association content is treated as if it enters the brain at the same instant as the last word of the sentence that triggered it, so the model's added tokens are pooled into those same fMRI frames.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Word-level human-annotated association is the strongest augmentation for improving brain scores; sentence-level and GPT-4-generated content also help but less consistently, so future datasets should favor multi-aspect lexical associations.
  • Supervised fine-tuning on the Association dataset transfers to better brain prediction in memory-related regions: the medial temporal lobe gains 2–7% and the superior parietal lobule gains 50–60% at the subject level.
  • Random word and sentence augmentation does not improve and can hurt brain scores, implying the gains are not just from longer input.
  • For LLaMA-2 the best-fitting layer is shallower (14 of 32) than for GPT-2 (9 of 12), so the linear mapping should be evaluated per model rather than at a fixed layer.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors leave the timing mechanism implicit: the paper collapses associative retrieval into the trigger word's fMRI frame; a natural extension is to let association content enter several TRs later or with a learned temporal kernel and test whether alignment improves further.
  • Because word-level augmentation outperforms sentence-level, the inference is that content-word associations, not grammatical expansions, carry the brain-alignment signal; this could be tested by comparing augmentation with high-frequency synonyms versus low-frequency associated words.
  • The paper does not fully separate associative memory from general semantic relatedness; one could test specificity by using related-but-nonassociative paraphrases or word-association norms, a distinction that would change the interpretation.
  • The authors note the limitation that their data and annotators share a specific language and cultural context, so a direct extension is to test whether the same gains appear in other languages and participant populations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether adding associative memory content to text stimuli improves the linear encoding-model alignment between language models (GPT-2 and LLaMA-2) and fMRI responses from the Narratives dataset. It first computes baseline brain scores by mapping per-layer LM activations to fMRI frames with a finite impulse response model and ridge regression. It then augments the text with human- or GPT-4-generated word- or sentence-level associations, defining the associative memory score as the difference between augmented and original brain scores. Finally, it builds the Association instruction-tuning dataset and fine-tunes LLaMA-2 with LoRA or frozen-layer training, reporting instruction tuning scores. The paper's two central claims are that simulated associative memory improves LM-brain alignment and that instructing LLMs to generate associative content through SFT also improves alignment.

Significance. If the reported effects were statistically robust and the training/evaluation confound were removed, the paper would make a useful contribution to the growing LM-brain alignment literature: it proposes a concrete augmentation mechanism for a cognitive process that is comparatively underexplored, releases a new instruction-tuning dataset, and includes a random-augmentation control. The paper also uses held-out fMRI data for the encoding model and provides detailed implementation information. However, the two central claims are currently under-supported: the associative memory score is reported without inferential statistics, the SFT result appears to train on the same Narratives stories used for evaluation, and the augmented content is placed in the same fMRI time bins under an untested simultaneity assumption. The significance of the findings is therefore conditional on addressing these load-bearing issues.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.3, Appendix A.3, §4.1] The instruction-tuning result is confounded by a training/evaluation overlap. Appendix A.3 states that the Association dataset is composed of sentences from the filtered Narratives stories, and §4.1 states that after filtering short articles, 15 Narratives stories are used for the reported experiments. As written, the same story text used to compute the brain scores in §5.3 appears in the SFT training data, so the 2–7% MTL gain in Figure 6 could reflect in-domain exposure to the evaluation stimuli rather than learning to generate associative content. The comparison against base LLaMA-2 does not control for this exposure. Please re-evaluate on Narratives stories (or other naturalistic stimuli) that are held out from Association, or explicitly document a split and demonstrate non-overlap; the manuscript currently provides no split information and no code to verify it.
  2. [§5.2, Figures 4 and 5, Eq. (10)] The associative memory score is the paper's first central result, but it is reported without error bars, confidence intervals, significance tests, or multiple-comparison correction. The raw differences are 0.0014–0.02 in Figure 4 and 0–0.05 in Figure 5, against baseline brain scores around 0.126 (Figure 3), so the gains are small relative to the score scale. The qualitative statement that random augmentation leads to 'none and even negative growth' is not a substitute for a statistical comparison. Please provide subject-level or story-level bootstrap/permutation intervals for the difference scores, and account for the number of ROIs and layers examined.
  3. [§3.3, Eqs. (9)–(10)] The temporal alignment of the augmented content is a load-bearing modeling choice. All expanded content is placed at the end of the triggering sentence and assigned the last word's offset, 'as if the associative memory forms simultaneously when subject receives specific text stimuli.' This means the augmented tokens are pooled into the same fMRI frames as the trigger words. If associative retrieval in the brain is delayed or distributed over a longer time window, the reported improvement could be an artifact of injecting extra context into the same time bin. No behavioral or neural evidence is offered for this simultaneity, and no robustness analysis is given. I request an exploration of alternative alignments, for example shifting the augmented content by one or more TRs relative to the trigger or extending the FIR window, to show the gain is not an artifact of the alignment.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A.2] The text says 'RidgeClassifierCV' regressor from scikit-learn is used to predict continuous features, but RidgeClassifierCV is a classification estimator; the ridge regression in Eq. (6) and the continuous fMRI targets imply the regressor variant (e.g., RidgeCV) is intended. Please correct this inconsistency.
  2. [Table 1] There is a typo in the sentence-level human augmentation example: 'creatin' should be 'creating'.
  3. [Figure 5] The caption says the dot color corresponds to the specific ROI, but the figure as printed does not provide a legend mapping colors to the nine ROIs. A legend would make the figure interpretable.
  4. [§5.3, Figure 6] The instruction tuning scores in Figure 6 are reported as percentages without error bars; the subject-level confidence intervals in Figure 7 are informative and should also be used for the whole-brain percentage scores in Figure 6.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: brain scores are held-out correlations; augmentation and SFT are not fitted to brain data, though the SFT setup has a train/evaluation overlap worth flagging as a soundness concern.

full rationale

Score 0, no circularity. The derivation chain is self-contained against external fMRI data. Brain score (Eq. 7) is a Pearson correlation between a ridge-regression prediction fit on held-out training frames and the original held-out fMRI response; neither the augmented text used in Eq. 9 nor the fine-tuned model activations used in Eq. 11 are derived from the voxel labels. Associative memory score (Eq. 10) and instruction tuning score (Eq. 11) are defined as differences or growth percentages between two independently evaluated brain scores, and the reported gains are not obtained by fitting a parameter to the fMRI response. The random-augmentation control in Section 5.2 further supports the causal reading of the augmentation result. I checked the self-citation patterns: prior work is cited for standard encoding-model methodology and for base models (GPT-2, LLaMA-2), but no load-bearing 'uniqueness' theorem is imported from the authors' own prior papers. The temporal-alignment choice in Section 3.3, which places all expanded content at the end of the triggering sentence 'as if the associative memory forms simultaneously when subject receives specific text stimuli,' is a modeling assumption that could be empirically wrong, but it is not circular: the augmented input is pooled into fMRI frames by a fixed onset rule, not by optimizing against the brain score. One confound is flagged for the soundness pass rather than the circularity pass: Appendix A.3 states that the Association SFT dataset 'is composed of sentences from filtered stories of Narratives,' while Section 4.1 selects the same 15 Narratives stories for evaluation; the Limitations section acknowledges annotator noise but not this exposure overlap. In-domain exposure could inflate the reported 2-7% medial temporal lobe gain in Section 5.3, but that is data leakage, not a reduction of the predicted score to a fitted value.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard linear encoding model, the unvalidated temporal alignment of simulated associative content, the ROI mapping, and the fidelity of the association simulation. The layer-index selection adds a data-dependent free parameter.

free parameters (3)
  • Layer index l for brain score = 9 (GPT-2), 14 (LLaMA-2)
    Selected in Section 5.1 as the layer with peak brain score on the evaluation data, then used for all subsequent experiments. This is a test-set-based selection that can inflate absolute scores.
  • FIR delay k = not reported
    Hyperparameter in Eq. 3 controlling the number of delayed fMRI frames used for temporal alignment. Its value is not stated, so the result depends on an unreported choice.
  • Ridge regularization lambda = selected via RidgeClassifierCV from 10 values log-spaced 1e-1 to 1e8
    Chosen by cross-validation on the training folds; standard but still data-dependent.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Brain activity can be predicted by a linear map from language model activations (linear encoding model).
    Section 3.2 defines brain score via ridge regression, following Huth et al. (2016) and Jain and Huth (2018). The whole comparison assumes this linear map is a valid measure of alignment.
  • ad hoc to paper Appended associative content is processed by the brain simultaneously with the triggering word, so it belongs in the same fMRI time bin.
    Section 3.3 sets all expanded content onsets to the last word's offset. This alignment is essential for the associative memory score to be meaningful.
  • domain assumption The nine selected ROIs correspond to associative memory, working memory, and speech processing functions.
    Section 4.2 selects ROIs from the Destrieux atlas based on prior literature; the claim of associative-memory-specific improvement depends on this mapping.
  • domain assumption Human and GPT-4 generated associations faithfully simulate the associative memory of the fMRI subjects.
    Section 3.3 and Appendix A.3 use annotators and GPT-4 to create associations from the stimulus text; there is no independent check that these match what subjects actually associated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improve Language Model and Brain Alignment via Associative Memory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GQHRIJA7

@misc{pith2026250513844,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improve Language Model and Brain Alignment via Associative Memory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GQHRIJA7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13844}
}
read the original abstract

Associative memory engages in the integration of relevant information for comprehension in the human cognition system. In this work, we seek to improve alignment between language models and human brain while processing speech information by integrating associative memory. After verifying the alignment between language model and brain by mapping language model activations to brain activity, the original text stimuli expanded with simulated associative memory are regarded as input to computational language models. We find the alignment between language model and brain is improved in brain regions closely related to associative memory processing. We also demonstrate large language models after specific supervised fine-tuning better align with brain response, by building the \textit{Association} dataset containing 1000 samples of stories, with instructions encouraging associative memory as input and associated content as output.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13844 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of how associative memory works [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. General framework of calculating brain score, associative memory score, and instruction tuning score. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Brain score of different layers with visualization. The colorbar refers to value of brain score. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Associative memory score of sentence-level and word-level data augmentation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Associative memory score of specific regions of interests (ROIs). (L) and (R) refer to left hemisphere and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Instruction tuning score after supervised fine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Francisco Aboitiz and Ricardo Garcı́a V. 1997. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0173(97)00053-2 The evolutionary origin of the language areas in the human brain. a neuroanatomical perspective . Brain Research Reviews, 25(3):381--396

    work page doi:10.1016/s0165-0173(97)00053-2 1997

  2. [2]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Nicolas Affolter, Beni Egressy, Damian Pascual, and Roger Wattenhofer. 2020. Brain2word: decoding brain activity for language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.04765

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    John R Anderson and Gordon H Bower. 2014. Human associative memory. Psychology press

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Richard Antonello and Alexander Huth. 2024. Predictive coding or just feature discovery? an alternative account of why language models fit brain data. Neurobiology of Language, 5(1):64--79

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Richard Antonello, Aditya Vaidya, and Alexander Huth. 2024. Scaling laws for language encoding models in fmri. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Alan Baddeley. 2003. Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of communication disorders, 36(3):189--208

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Jeffrey R Binder. 2015. The wernicke area: Modern evidence and a reinterpretation. Neurology, 85(24):2170--2175

    work page 2015

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Jeffrey R Binder and Rutvik H Desai. 2011. The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in cognitive sciences, 15(11):527--536

    2011

  2. [10]

    Rafal Bogacz and Malcolm W Brown. 2003. Comparison of computational models of familiarity discrimination in the perirhinal cortex. Hippocampus, 13(4):494--524

    2003

  3. [11]

    Charlotte Caucheteux, Alexandre Gramfort, and Jean-Remi King. 2021. Disentangling syntax and semantics in the brain with deep networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1336--1348. PMLR

    2021

  4. [12]

    Charlotte Caucheteux, Alexandre Gramfort, and Jean-R \'e mi King. 2022. Deep language algorithms predict semantic comprehension from brain activity. Scientific reports, 12(1):16327

    2022

  5. [13]

    Charlotte Caucheteux, Alexandre Gramfort, and Jean-R \'e mi King. 2023. Evidence of a predictive coding hierarchy in the human brain listening to speech. Nature human behaviour, 7(3):430--441

    2023

  6. [14]

    Charlotte Caucheteux and Jean-R \'e mi King. 2020. Language processing in brains and deep neural networks: computational convergence and its limits. BioRxiv, pages 2020--07

    2020

  7. [15]

    Charlotte Caucheteux and Jean-R \'e mi King. 2022. Brains and algorithms partially converge in natural language processing. Communications biology, 5(1):134

    2022

  8. [16]

    Chang, Erik Edwards, Srikantan S

    Edward F. Chang, Erik Edwards, Srikantan S. Nagarajan, Noa Fogelson, Sarang S. Dalal, Ryan T. Canolty, Heidi E. Kirsch, Nicholas M. Barbaro, and Robert T. Knight. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21466 Cortical Spatio-temporal Dynamics Underlying Phonological Target Det...

    2011

  9. [17]

    Christophe Destrieux, Bruce Fischl, Anders Dale, and Eric Halgren. 2010. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.010 Automatic parcellation of human cortical gyri and sulci using standard anatomical nomenclature . NeuroImage, 53(1):1--15

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    Nina F Dronkers, Odile Plaisant, Marie Therese Iba-Zizen, and Emmanuel A Cabanis. 2007. Paul broca's historic cases: high resolution mr imaging of the brains of leborgne and lelong. Brain, 130(5):1432--1441

    2007

  11. [19]

    Nadir Durrani, Hassan Sajjad, and Fahim Dalvi. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.438 How transfer learning impacts linguistic knowledge in deep NLP models? In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 4947--4957, Online...

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Howard Eichenbaum. 2017. Time (and space) in the hippocampus. Current opinion in behavioral sciences, 17:65--70

    2017

  13. [21]

    Changjiang Gao, Shujian Huang, Jixing Li, and Jiajun Chen. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.19084 Roles of scaling and instruction tuning in language perception: Model vs. human attention

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    NORMAN GESCHWIND. 1965. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/88.2.237 DISCONNEXION SYNDROMES IN ANIMALS AND MAN1 . Brain, 88(2):237--237

    1965 doi

  15. [23]

    Ariel Goldstein, Zaid Zada, Eliav Buchnik, Mariano Schain, Amy Price, Bobbi Aubrey, Samuel A Nastase, Amir Feder, Dotan Emanuel, Alon Cohen, et al. 2020. Thinking ahead: spontaneous prediction in context as a keystone of language in humans and machines. BioRxiv, pages 2020--12

    2020

  16. [24]

    Ariel Goldstein, Zaid Zada, Eliav Buchnik, Mariano Schain, Amy Price, Bobbi Aubrey, Samuel A Nastase, Amir Feder, Dotan Emanuel, Alon Cohen, et al. 2022. Shared computational principles for language processing in humans and deep language models. Nature neuroscience, 25(3):369--380

    2022

  17. [25]

    Boris Gourévitch, Régine Le Bouquin Jeannès , Gérard Faucon, and Catherine Liégeois-Chauvel. 2008. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2007.12.003 Temporal envelope processing in the human auditory cortex: Response and interconnections of auditory cortical areas ....

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    u nt \"u rk \

    Marnie E Halpern, Onur G \"u nt \"u rk \"u n, William D Hopkins, and Lesley J Rogers. 2005. Lateralization of the vertebrate brain: taking the side of model systems. Journal of Neuroscience, 25(45):10351--10357

    2005

  19. [27]

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Alexander G Huth, Wendy A De Heer, Thomas L Griffiths, Fr \'e d \'e ric E Theunissen, and Jack L Gallant. 2016. Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex. Nature, 532(7600):453--458

    2016

  21. [29]

    Alexander G Huth, Shinji Nishimoto, An T Vu, and Jack L Gallant. 2012. A continuous semantic space describes the representation of thousands of object and action categories across the human brain. Neuron, 76(6):1210--1224

    2012

  22. [30]

    Shailee Jain and Alexander Huth. 2018. Incorporating context into language encoding models for fmri. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31

    2018

  23. [31]

    David Marr, David Willshaw, and Bruce McNaughton. 1991. Simple memory: a theory for archicortex. Springer

    1991

  24. [32]

    Andrew Mayes, Daniela Montaldi, and Ellen Migo. 2007. Associative memory and the medial temporal lobes. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(3):126--135

    2007

  25. [33]

    James L McClelland, Bruce L McNaughton, and Randall C O'Reilly. 1995. Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychological review, 102(3):419

    1995

  26. [34]

    Danielle S McNamara and Joe Magliano. 2009. Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of learning and motivation, 51:297--384

    2009

  27. [35]

    Tom M Mitchell, Svetlana V Shinkareva, Andrew Carlson, Kai-Min Chang, Vicente L Malave, Robert A Mason, and Marcel Adam Just. 2008. Predicting human brain activity associated with the meanings of nouns. science, 320(5880):1191--1195

    2008

  28. [36]

    Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Nathanael Chambers, Xiaodong He, Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra, Lucy Vanderwende, Pushmeet Kohli, and James Allen. 2016. http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.01696 A corpus and evaluation framework for deeper understanding of commonsense stories

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Omer Moussa, Dietrich Klakow, and Mariya Toneva. 2024. Improving semantic understanding in speech language models via brain-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09230

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    narratives

    Samuel A Nastase, Yun-Fei Liu, Hanna Hillman, Asieh Zadbood, Liat Hasenfratz, Neggin Keshavarzian, Janice Chen, Christopher J Honey, Yaara Yeshurun, Mor Regev, et al. 2021. The “narratives” fmri dataset for evaluating models of naturalistic language comprehension. Scientific d...

    2021

  31. [39]

    SUBBAREDDY OOTA, Manish Gupta, and Mariya Toneva. 2024. Joint processing of linguistic properties in brains and language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  32. [40]

    Fabian Pedregosa, Ga \"e l Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, et al. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python. the Journal of machine Learning research, 12:2825--2830

    2011

  33. [41]

    Amy Poremba, Megan Malloy, Richard C Saunders, Richard E Carson, Peter Herscovitch, and Mortimer Mishkin. 2004. Species-specific calls evoke asymmetric activity in the monkey's temporal poles. Nature, 427(6973):448--451

    2004

  34. [42]

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9

    2019

  35. [43]

    St \'e phanie K Ri \`e s, Nina F Dronkers, and Robert T Knight. 2016. Choosing words: Left hemisphere, right hemisphere, or both? perspective on the lateralization of word retrieval. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369(1):111--131

    2016

  36. [44]

    Hassan Sajjad, Nadir Durrani, Fahim Dalvi, Firoj Alam, Abdul Khan, and Jia Xu. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.225 Analyzing encoded concepts in transformer language models . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Associati...

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    Roger C Schank. 1972. Conceptual dependency: A theory of natural language understanding. Cognitive psychology, 3(4):552--631

    1972

  38. [46]

    Steven C Schwering and Maryellen C MacDonald. 2020. Verbal working memory as emergent from language comprehension and production. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 14:68

    2020

  39. [47]

    Edward E Smith, John Jonides, Christy Marshuetz, and Robert A Koeppe. 1998. Components of verbal working memory: evidence from neuroimaging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95(3):876--882

    1998

  40. [48]

    Reisa A Sperling, Julianna F Bates, Andrew J Cocchiarella, Daniel L Schacter, Bruce R Rosen, and Marilyn S Albert. 2001. Encoding novel face-name associations: A functional mri study. Human brain mapping, 14(3):129--139

    2001

  41. [49]

    Mariya Toneva and Leila Wehbe. 2019. Interpreting and improving natural-language processing (in machines) with natural language-processing (in the brain). Advances in neural information processing systems, 32

    2019

  42. [50]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Endel Tulving et al. 1972. Episodic and semantic memory. Organization of memory, 1(381-403):1

    1972

  44. [52]

    Leila Wehbe, Brian Murphy, Partha Talukdar, Alona Fyshe, Aaditya Ramdas, and Tom Mitchell. 2014. Simultaneously uncovering the patterns of brain regions involved in different story reading subprocesses. PloS one, 9(11):e112575

    2014

  45. [53]

    Daniel LK Yamins and James J DiCarlo. 2016. Using goal-driven deep learning models to understand sensory cortex. Nature neuroscience, 19(3):356--365

    2016

  46. [54]

    Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Zeng, Yankai Lin, Chaojun Xiao, Xiaozhi Wang, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, Ruobing Xie, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2023. Emergent modularity in pre-trained transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18390

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    URL: " 'urlintro :=

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before...

  48. [56]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.