Cited by 343Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentLanguage Development and Disorders

A hierarchy of linguistic predictions during natural language comprehension

Open access
Heilbron, Micha, Armeni, Kristijan, Schoffelen, Jan-Mathijs, Hagoort, Peter, de Lange, Floris P.·2022·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Understanding spoken language requires transforming ambiguous acoustic streams into a hierarchy of representations, from phonemes to meaning. It has been suggested that the brain uses prediction to guide the interpretation of incoming input. However, the role of prediction in language processing remains disputed, with disagreement about both the ubiquity and representational nature of predictions. Here, we address both issues by analyzing brain recordings of participants listening to audiobooks, and using a deep neural network (GPT-2) to precisely quantify contextual predictions. First, we establish that brain responses to words are modulated by ubiquitous predictions. Next, we disentangle model-based predictions into distinct dimensions, revealing dissociable neural signatures of predictions about syntactic category (parts of speech), phonemes, and semantics. Finally, we show that high-level (word) predictions inform low-level (phoneme) predictions, supporting hierarchical predictive processing. Together, these results underscore the ubiquity of prediction in language processing, showing that the brain spontaneously predicts upcoming language at multiple levels of abstraction.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.2201968119

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The human language network is sensitive to abstract hierarchical rules across isolated phrases, naturalistic narratives, and syntactically well-formed but semantically empty stimuli.

    “it is sensitive to abstract hierarchical rules in isolated phrases and sentences [31, 108, 109, 110], in naturalistic narratives [111, 112, 113, 114], and in syntactically well-formed but semantically empty (”

    From Dissociating language and thought in large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [113]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. [2]M. Kutas, K. A. DeLong, N. J. Smith, “A look around at what lies ahead: Prediction and predictability in language processing” in Predictions in the Brain: Using Our Past to Generate a Future, M. Bar, Ed. (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2011), pp. 190– 207.
  2. [3]F. Jelinek, Statistical Methods for Speech Recognition (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998).
  3. [4]A. Graves, A. Mohamed, G. Hinton, “Speech recognition with deep recurrent neural networks” in 2013 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2013), pp. 6645– 6649.
  4. [20]J. Hale, “A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model” in Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2001).
  5. [22]J. Hale, C. Dyer, A. Kuncoro, J. Brennan, “Finding syntax in human encephalography with beam search” in Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Long Papers (Association for Computational Linguistics, Melbourne, Australia), vol. 1, pp. 2727– 2736 (2018).
  6. [29]L. Gwilliams, D. Poeppel, A. Marantz, T. Linzen, “Phonological (un)certainty weights lexical activation” in Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL 2018) (Association for Computational Linguistics, Salt Lake City, UT), pp. 29– 34 (2018).
  7. [39]A. Radford., Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI Blog 1, 8 (2019).
  8. [48]L. Gwilliams, J. R. King, A. Marantz, D. Poeppel, Neural dynamics of phoneme sequencing in real speech jointly encode order and invariant content. bioRxiv [Preprint] (2020). 10.1101/2020.04.04.025684. Accessed 1 July 2021. · DOI
  9. [50]W. D. Marslen-Wilson, “Access and integration: Projecting sound onto meaning” in Lexical Representation and Process, W.D. Marslen-Wilson, Ed. (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989), pp. 3– 24.
  10. [54]A. Goodkind, K. Bicknell, “Predictive power of word surprisal for reading times is a linear function of language model quality” in Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL 2018) (Association for Computational Linguistics, Salt Lake City, UT), pp. 10– 18 (2018).
  11. [56]M. Heilbron, B. Ehinger, P. Hagoort, F. P. De Lange, Tracking naturalistic linguistic predictions with deep neural language models. In 2019 Conference on Cognitive Computational Neuroscience (CCN 2019), pp. 424– 427.
  12. [76]M. Toneva, L. Wehbe, Interpreting and improving natural-language processing (in machines) with natural language-processing (in the brain). Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 32, 14954– 14964 (2019).
  13. [96]M. Heilbron, K. Armeni, J.-M. Schoffelen, P. Hagoort, F. P. de Lange, “A 10-hour within-participant magnetoencephalography narrative dataset to test models of naturalistic language comprehension.” Donders Institute. 10.34973/5rpw-rn92. Deposited 21 July 2022. PMC9177538 35676293 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heilbron, M., Armeni, K., Schoffelen, J.-M., Hagoort, P., & de Lange, F. P.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • Donders Institute, Radboud University, 6525 EN Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Corresponding author
Heilbron, Micha
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2022-08-03
Volume
119
Issue
32
Pages
e2201968119-e2201968119
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W4289638300
Cited by
343
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 70 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 78 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 7
FWCI
34.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission (HORIZON2020)
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Vidi‐452‐13‐016, 864.14.011, 024.001.006, 406.17.516, 452-13-016)
  • H2020 European Research Council (678286)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
predictive processing, natural language understanding, spoken language, hierarchical representation, phoneme prediction, semantic prediction, parts of speech, word prediction, GPT-2, audiobook listening
MeSH terms
Brain, Humans, Language, Linguistics, Semantics, Speech Perception, Neural Networks, Computer, Comprehension

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review