The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 42 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality
Open accessAbstract
An integral part of human language is the capacity to extract meaning from spoken and written words, but the precise relationship between brain representations of information perceived by listening versus reading is unclear. Prior neuroimaging studies have shown that semantic information in spoken language is represented in multiple regions in the human cerebral cortex, while amodal semantic information appears to be represented in a few broad brain regions. However, previous studies were too insensitive to determine whether semantic representations were shared at a fine level of detail rather than merely at a coarse scale. We used fMRI to record brain activity in two separate experiments while participants listened to or read several hours of the same narrative stories, and then created voxelwise encoding models to characterize semantic selectivity in each voxel and in each individual participant. We find that semantic tuning during listening and reading are highly correlated in most semantically selective regions of cortex, and models estimated using one modality accurately predict voxel responses in the other modality. These results suggest that the representation of language semantics is independent of the sensory modality through which the semantic information is received. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Humans can comprehend the meaning of words from both spoken and written language. It is therefore important to understand the relationship between the brain representations of spoken or written text. Here, we show that although the representation of semantic information in the human brain is quite complex, the semantic representations evoked by listening versus reading are almost identical. These results suggest that the representation of language semantics is independent of the sensory modality through which the semantic information is received.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Using fMRI and voxelwise encoding models, the authors compared semantic selectivity while the same participants listened to or read the same narrative stories. They found that semantic tuning is highly correlated across modalities in most semantically selective cortex, and models fit in one modality accurately predict responses in the other.
Key findings
- Semantic model prediction was broadly distributed across lateral temporal, ventral temporal, lateral parietal, medial parietal, and prefrontal cortices in both listening and reading, with maximum MNI-space prediction accuracy of 0.27 ± 0.03 for listening and 0.28 ± 0.03 for reading.
- Listening and reading semantic principal component projections were significantly correlated for at least the first five semantic PCs; correlations weakened after the sixth PC but remained above chance until the seventh.
- Voxelwise semantic model weights estimated during listening and reading were strongly correlated in many bilateral temporal, parietal, and prefrontal regions, especially for voxels semantically selective in both modalities.
- Cross-modal prediction was accurate throughout most of the semantic system: models fit to listening predicted reading responses, and models fit to reading predicted listening responses, while sensory-cortex voxels were not well predicted cross-modally.
Methods
- Nine participants (six male, three female) listened to and read more than two hours of narrative stories from The Moth Radio Hour; reading used rapid serial visual presentation with each word timed to match its spoken duration.
- fMRI BOLD responses were modeled voxelwise with banded ridge regression using a 985-dimensional word co-occurrence semantic feature space plus nuisance regressors (motion-energy, spectral, phoneme, letter, word rate, syntax, etc.), with FIR hemodynamic modeling and cross-validated regularization.
- Model performance was assessed on a held-out story using Pearson correlation, permutation tests with 10,000 iterations, and FDR correction; cross-modality prediction used weights from one modality to predict responses in the other.
Limitations
- The paper states that its semantic feature space is only one possible representation of semantics and may miss long-timescale conceptual knowledge, metaphors, humor, sarcasm, and narrative information, which could have modality-specific representations.
- The paper notes that RSVP reading differs from natural reading because readers cannot control which word to read at each point in time, though timing was matched to listening.
- The paper also notes that within-modality data were collected largely within sessions while between-modality data were collected across sessions, so within-modality prediction accuracy is likely somewhat higher for that reason alone; an evident additional limitation is the small sample of nine participants, two of whom were authors.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 42 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“models estimated using one modality accurately predict voxel responses in the other modality”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that semantic tuning during listening and reading are highly correlated in most semantically selective regions of cortex”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Outside the semantic system, some voxels on the border to visual cortex and voxels surrounding the temporal parietal junction are well predicted within modality but not across modality (orange voxels in Fig. 9).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Can a voxelwise model fit to one modality predict responses to the other modality?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, we show amodal semantic representation in bilateral precuneus, temporal parietal junction (TPJ), angular gyrus (AG), anterior to posterior STS, sPMv, Broca's area and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Semantic tuning is more similar for voxels that are semantically selective in both modalities (red) than for those that are well predicted in one modality only (blue or green).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Is semantic tuning consistent across modalities at the single-voxel level?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our study shows that semantically amodal voxels are bilaterally distributed across many regions of the temporal, parietal and prefrontal cortices (Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of the voxels in the semantic system are significantly predicted by all participants in both modalities.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Most of the voxels in the semantic system are significantly predicted by all participants in both modalities.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Model estimation and evaluation
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, the semantic model accurately predicts activity in most of the semantic system independent of the presentation modality.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the cortical distribution of semantically selective voxels depend on stimulus modality?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Voxels that are not well predicted cross-modally are located in sensory cortices.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Can a voxelwise model fit to one modality predict responses to the other modality?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most voxels that are well predicted within and across modality are located in the semantic system (white voxels in Fig. 9).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Can a voxelwise model fit to one modality predict responses to the other modality?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 13
- Probably not a substantial claim. 32
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Correlations of the sixth PC projection and beyond are relatively weaker, but remain above chance level until the seventh PC projection.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the representation of semantic information vary with sensory modality?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(maximum prediction accuracy across all MNI voxels for listening 0.27 Ϯ 0.03, maximum prediction accuracy across all MNI voxels for reading: 0.28 Ϯ 0.03)”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the cortical distribution of semantically selective voxels depend on stimulus modality?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 9Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Figure 2a shows that our semantic model predicts brain activity in a broadly distributed semantic system when participants listen to natural stories, replicating our previous study (Huth et al., 2016).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the cortical distribution of semantically selective voxels depend on stimulus modality?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Huth et al., 2016
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“One striking difference between our results and those reported in earlier studies is that we find a large network of semantically selective regions that are independent of the presentation modality, whereas previous studies reported a few amodal semantic regions located mostly in the left hemisphere (Petersen et al., 1989;Chee et al., 1999;Jobard et al., 2007;Buchweitz et al., 2009;Liuzzi et al.,”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Petersen et al., 1989
- Not checked yetcites Chee et al., 1999
- Not checked yetcites Liuzzi et al., 2017
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Negatively correlated voxels are mostly in sensory regions and are not well predicted by the semantic model in either modality.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Is semantic tuning consistent across modalities at the single-voxel level?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, due to averaging across participants voxel prediction accuracies are lower than in individual participant results”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the cortical distribution of semantically selective voxels depend on stimulus modality?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prior neuroimaging studies have shown that semantic information in spoken language is represented in multiple regions in the human cerebral cortex”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Abstract
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the demonstration of some common activation during listening and reading is necessary but not sufficient evidence of a common amodal semantic representation.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while amodal semantic information appears to be represented in a few broad brain regions”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although the early sensory processing pathways for listening and reading are distinct”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rubin et al., 2000
- Not checked yetcites Diakidoy et al., 2005
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, previous studies were too insensitive to determine whether semantic representations were shared at a fine level of detail rather than merely at a coarse scale.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Listening and reading presentations were counterbalanced across participants.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Participants
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This model was selected based on an earlier study showing that it outperforms other low level acoustical models”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Spectral model construction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites de Heer et al., 2017
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The eye tracker was calibrated before the first run of data acquisition.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Natural reading stimuli
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Banded ridge regression assigns a different regularization parameter for every feature space and so reduces bias caused by correlations between feature spaces.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Voxelwise model fitting
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nunez-Elizalde et al., 2019
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The motion-energy, spectral, word rate, phoneme rate, phonemes, letter rate, letters, and word length variation features were used to explain away low-level parameters that might otherwise contaminate the semantic model weights.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Feature spaces
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The regularization parameter for each feature space was estimated empirically via cross-validation on a held-out set.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Banded ridge regression
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Most of these cross-modality studies observed activity in left lateralized regions such as the left anterior temporal lobe, left superior temporal sulcus (STS), left middle temporal gyrus (MTG), and left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chee et al., 1999
- Not checked yetcites Michael et al., 2001
- Not checked yetcites Buchweitz et al., 2009
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Banded ridge regression is a special case of the well-established statistical approach called Tikhonov regression”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Banded ridge regression
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tikhonov and Arsenin, 1977
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the stories were performed by different speakers and were not uniformly mastered, so some differences in total loudness remain.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Natural speech stimuli
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Statistical significance was computed by a permutation test with 10,000 iterations and comparing estimated correlations to the empirical null distribution of correlations for each participant and modality separately.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Model estimation and evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To find out whether the semantic projections could be correlated by chance, a permutation test with 10,000 iterations was performed for each individual participant separately.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Correlating the semantic principal components
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Statistical significance was defined as any correlation coefficient that exceeded 95% of all of the permuted correlations.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Correlating the semantic principal components
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The corrected aligned transcript was then spot-checked for accuracy by a different listener.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Story transcription and preprocessing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The regularization parameter is optimized based on prediction accuracy on a held-out dataset.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Banded ridge regression
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(Note, however, that within-modality data were collected largely within sessions, and between-modality data were collected across sessions.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Can a voxelwise model fit to one modality predict responses to the other modality?
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Before surface reconstruction, anatomical surface segmentations were carefully handchecked and corrected using Blender software and pycortex”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Cortical surface reconstruction and visualization
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These automatic alignments were manually checked and adjusted as necessary to improve accuracy.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Stimulus down-sampling
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, to make listening and reading more comparable we matched the timing of the words presented during RSVP to the rate at which the words occurred during listening.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Natural reading stimuli
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: RSVP reading differs from natural reading in that the reader has no control over which word to read at each point in time.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each story was manually transcribed by one listener, and this transcription was checked by a second listener.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Story transcription and preprocessing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Relatively few have studied cross-modal representations by presenting the same stimuli in both modalities”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Petersen et al., 1989
- Not checked yetcites Chee et al., 1999
- Not checked yetcites Michael et al., 2001
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two of the participants were authors on the paper (A.G.H. and A.O.N.-E.).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Participants
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 2Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Resulting p-values were corrected for multiple comparisons within each participant using the false discovery rate (FDR) procedure (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Model estimation and evaluation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“However, that study did not model semantic information, but only showed that voxel activations in these regions tend to be correlated across these two modalities.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Regev et al., 2013
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To validate the voxelwise models, estimated model weights were used to predict responses to a validation story that was not used for model estimation.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Model estimation and evaluation
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Previous studies have shown that complex linguistic stimuli such as narrative stories activate many more brain regions than single words or short sentences (Mazoyer et al., 1993;Xu et al., 2005;Jobard et al., 2007;Lerner et al., 2011).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mazoyer et al., 1993
- Not checked yetcites Xu et al., 2005
- Not checked yetcites Lerner et al., 2011
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“For example, when people listen to or read a story they likely employ conceptual knowledge at long time scales beyond those using for computing semantic features (Yeshurun et al., 2017).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yeshurun et al., 2017
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Therefore, studies performing intersubject averaging might average away meaningful signal and fail to find significant relationships (Fedorenko and Kanwisher, 2009).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fedorenko and Kanwisher, 2009 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“That study used as stimuli twenty-four single words derived from only six animate categories, and showed cross-modal representations within left pars triangularis.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Liuzzi et al., 2017
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“To our knowledge, only one previous study of cross-modal representation has used explicit semantic features to model brain activity patterns related to semantics (Liuzzi et al., 2017).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Liuzzi et al., 2017
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
RSVP reading differs from natural reading in that the reader has no control over which word to read at each point in time.
“RSVP reading is different than natural reading because during RSVP the reader has no control over which word to read at each point in time.”
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?
In the citing paper
“This language network supports both comprehension (spoken, written, and signed) [30, 31, 32, 33] and production [34, 35]”
From Dissociating language and thought in large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [30]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Second and third semantic PCs have conflicting color assignments
MinorThe Results assign green to the second semantic PC and blue to the third, while the Figure 4 caption assigns blue to the second and green to the third.
“Each voxel was then colored according to a simple RGB color scheme, where the color red represents the first semantic PC, the color green represents the second semantic PC, and blue the third semantic PC.”
“Each voxel is colored according to its projection onto the first (red), second (blue) or third (green) semantic PC.”
Pauses are included as nuisance regressors but omitted from the feature-space list
MinorThe stated list of feature spaces omits pauses, although the Results say pauses were included as nuisance regressors.
“The feature spaces were motion-energy features (39 parameters), spectral features (80 parameters), word rate (1 parameter), phoneme rate (1 parameter), phonemes (39 parameters), letter rate (1 parameter), letters (26 parameters), word length variation per repetition time (1 parameter), syntactic features (56 parameters), and co-occurrence semantics (985 parameters).”
“Several low-level features (low-level visual, spectral, word rate, letter rate, word length variation, phonemes, phoneme rate, and pauses) and syntactic features were included alongside the semantic features as nuisance regressors (see Materials and Methods)”
Citations
Cites
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482 · cited 1×
“Resulting p-values were corrected for multiple comparisons within each participant using the false discovery rate (FDR) procedure (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995).”
MethodThe assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory
Oldfield, R. C. (1971) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 · Cited by 35,900 · cited 2×
“One participant was left handed, all other participants were right handed or ambidextrous according to the Edinburgh handedness inventory (Oldfield, 1971) (laterality quotient of 100: entirely left- handed, 100: entirely right-handed).”
MethodAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25
Zhang, Y., Sutton, C. A., Storkey, A., & Zoubin Ghahramani, A. (2012) · Cited by 12,653
Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis
Deerwester, S., Dumais, S., Landauer, T., et al. (1990) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199009)41:6%3c391::aid-asi1%3e3.0.co;2-9 · Cited by 12,359 · cited 2×
“Semantic model construction To account for response variance caused by the semantic content of the story stimuli a 985-parameter semantic feature space based on word co-occurrence statistics in a large corpus of text (Deerwester et al., 1990; Lund and Burgess, 1996; Mitchell et al., 2008; Huth et al., 2016) was used.”
MethodJenkinson, M., Bannister, P., Brady, M., & Smith, S. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1132 · Cited by 11,888 · cited 1×
“Each functional run was motion-corrected using the FMRIB Linear Image Registration Tool (FLIRT) from FSL 5.0 (Jenkinson and Smith, 2001; Jenkinson et al., 2002).”
MethodInfluentialCortical Surface-Based Analysis
Dale, A. M., Fischl, B., & Sereno, M. I. (1999) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.1998.0395 · Cited by 10,910 · cited 1×
“Cortical surface reconstruction and visualization Cortical surface meshes were generated from the T1-weighted anatomical scans using Freesurfer software (Dale et al., 1999).”
MethodSolutions of Ill-Posed Problems.
Bell, J. B., Tikhonov, A. N., & Arsenin, V. Y. (1978) · Mathematics of Computation · doi:10.2307/2006360 · Cited by 8,096 · cited 1×
“Banded ridge regression is a special case of the well-established statistical approach called Tikhonov regression (Tikhonov and Arsenin, 1977).”
MethodThe fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception
Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., & Chun, M. M. (1997) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.17-11-04302.1997 · Cited by 7,738 · cited 1×
“The contrast between faces and objects was used to define the fusiform face area (Kanwisher et al., 1997) and occipital face area (Halgren et al.”
MethodA global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images
Jenkinson, M., & Smith, S. M. (2001) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/s1361-8415(01)00036-6 · Cited by 7,018 · cited 1×
“Each functional run was motion-corrected using the FMRIB Linear Image Registration Tool (FLIRT) from FSL 5.0 (Jenkinson and Smith, 2001; Jenkinson et al., 2002).”
MethodInfluentialPraat, a system for doing phonetics by computer
Boersma, P. (2002) · UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · Cited by 4,417
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- 10.2307/2346101 · DOI
- Bergstra, 2011, Algorithms for hyper-parameter optimization, 24, 2546
- 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0193(1999)7:1<29::AID-HBM3>3.0.CO;2-R · DOI
- 10.1016/S1053-8119(02)91132-8 · DOI · Paper page
- Oliphant TE (2006) A guide to NumPy, Vol 1, p 85. USA: Trelgol Publishing.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–195 of 195
Wells, E. M., Velasquez, D., Hutchinson, A., & Gunn, K. M. (2023) · Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association · doi:10.1080/24750158.2023.2231231 · Cited by 7
Truzman, T., Rochon, E. A., Meltzer, J. A., Léonard, C., & Bitan, T. (2021) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci11101330 · Cited by 10
Algorithm Visualization and the Elusive Modality Effect
Zavgorodniaia, A., Tilanterä, A., Korhonen, A., Seppälä, O., Hellas, A., & Sorva, J. (2021) · ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) · doi:10.1145/3446871.3469747 · Cited by 7
“This is supported by a recent neuroimaging study [17].”
ResultAn fMRI dataset in response to “The Grand Budapest Hotel”, a socially-rich, naturalistic moviePreprint
Castello, M. V. D. O., Chauhan, V., Jiahui, G., & Gobbini, M. I. (2020) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2020.07.14.203257 · Cited by 10
Same Cause; Different Effects in the Brain
Toneva, M., Williams, J. R., Bollu, A., Dann, C., & Wehbe, L. (2022) · PubMed · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2202.10376 · Cited by 8
“Encoding model weights can reveal the latent directions of largest variance in the tuning to a stimulus-representation (Huth et al., 2012, 2016; Deniz et al., 2019) and even how tuning in the same zone is affected by a specific task (i.e., attending to humans) (Çukur et al., 2013).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAttention weights accurately predict language representations in the brain
(2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.12.07.519480 · Cited by 5
“The statistical significance of the prediction performance r for each voxel is determined by a permutation test with 10000 iterations (Deniz et al., 2019; Lescroart and Gallant, 2019; Jain et al., 2020; Ra-makrishnan and Deniz, 2021).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationFunctional brain mapping using whole-head very high-density diffuse optical tomography
Fogarty, M., Rafferty, S. M., Markow, Z. E., O’Sullivan, A. C., Svoboda, C. F., George, T., King, K., Wilhelm, D., Tripathy, K., Mugler, E. M., et al. (2025) · Imaging Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/imag.a.54 · Cited by 5
“Naturalistic imaging tasks can include listening ( LeBel et al., 2023), movie viewing ( Finn & Bandettini, 2021; Vanderwal et al., 2019), reading ( Deniz et al., 2019; Kell et al., 2017; Woolnough et al., 2021), or even exploring a virtual reality environment ( Bulgarelli et al., 2023; Roberts et…”
Disentangling Superpositions: Interpretable Brain Encoding Model with Sparse Concept Atoms
Zeng, A., & Gallant, J. L. (2026) · bioRxiv · doi:10.64898/2025.11.29.691321 · Cited by 5
“Previous studies using word embeddings or ANN-based features often assume that regression weights in these high-dimensional spaces are directly interpretable [22, 50, 54, 13].”
Self-citationIndividual differences shape conceptual representation in the brainPreprint
Castello, M. V. D. O., la Tour, T. D., & Gallant, J. L. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.08.22.671848 · Cited by 6
“As in previous works (Chen et al., 2024; Deniz et al., 2019), blocks of 10 temporally contiguous samples (corresponding to 20 s of data) were randomly permuted to account for the existing temporal autocorrelation in the data.”
Self-citationA Mathematical Structure Underlying Sentences and Its Connection with Short–Term Memory
Matricciani, E. (2024) · AppliedMath · doi:10.3390/appliedmath4010007 · Cited by 8
“Recently [1], we proposed a well–grounded conjecture that a sentence—read or pronounced as the two activities are similarly processed by the brain [2]—is elaborated by the short–term memory (STM), with two independent processing units in series that have similar buffer size.”
BackgroundRekrut, M., Fey, A., Nadig, M., Ihl, J., Jungbluth, T., & Krüger, A. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Metrology for eXtended Reality, Artificial Intelligence and Neural Engineering (MetroXRAINE) · doi:10.1109/metroxraine54828.2022.9967665 · Cited by 7
“The here presented work wants to address the problem of mentally and physically exhausting silent speech BCI training procedures by introducing a transfer learning approach which makes use of the similarity between the concepts of silently reading and silently speaking words [7], [8].”
BackgroundCurrent Status of Podcasts in Orthopaedic Surgery Practice and Education
Danford, N., Bixby, E. C., & Levine, W. (2021) · Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-21-00856 · Cited by 5
Impact of multisensory learning on perceptual and lexical processing of unisensory Morse code
Junker, F. B., Schlaffke, L., Axmacher, N., & Wilcke, T. S. (2021) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2020.147259 · Cited by 7
“Hence, language is a MS phenomenon involving high-level feature representations independent of the sensory modality (Fatma et al., 2019).”
Arbel, R., Heimler, B., & Amedi, A. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242619 · Cited by 7
Hartung, F., & Willems, R. M. (2020) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2020.06.08.139923 · Cited by 13
Teaching the Novel in the Audio Age
English, J. F. (2020) · PMLA/Publications of the Modern Language Association of America · doi:10.1632/pmla.2020.135.2.419 · Cited by 4
(2021) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.cmcl-1.1 · Cited by 4
Self-citationA map of the cortical functional network mediating naturalistic navigation
Zhang, T.-J., Meschke, E. X., & Gallant, J. L. (2025) · bioRxiv · doi:10.64898/2025.12.16.694742 · Cited by 4
“The voxelwise encoding modelling (VEM) framework is a powerful approach that has been validated in many previous experiments 79–82 .”
Self-citationReading experience reveals shared and idiosyncratic neural patterns during text comprehension
Song, M., Li, L., He, D., & Cai, Q. (2025) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-025-00390-7 · Cited by 4
“Thesedurationswere chosentoapproximatenaturalreadingspeed 57 .”
Fine-grained Analysis of Brain-LLM Alignment through Input Attribution
Proietti, M., Capobianco, R., & Toneva, M. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.12355 · Cited by 4
“This suggests that oscillatory behavior is not a necessary consequence of shared architectural components (RoPE, GQA, or FlashAttention2), but rather may emerge from interactions between architecture and specific input statistics, as confirmed by the absence of oscillations when considering shorter contexts or on the…”
InfluentialBrain-tuned Speech Models Better Reflect Speech Processing Stages in the Brain
Moussa, O., & Toneva, M. (2025) · Interspeech · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03832 · Cited by 4
“However, these analyses of how semantics evolve through model layers did not test how these models align with the brain’s high-level late language regions, which are thought to be the endpoint of linguistic and speech processing in the brain [11].”
DTBIA: An Immersive Visual Analytics System for Brain-Inspired Research
Yao, J.-H., Li, M., Liu, J., et al. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2025.3567135 · Cited by 4
“Tools such as BrainBrowser [19], BrainGL [20], and BrainViewer [21] allow interactive exploration of structural and functional data, while Brain3X [22] enables real-time interaction with brain network dynamics.”
Li, Y., Xing, H., Zhang, L., Shu, H., & Zhang, Y. (2021) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci11070830 · Cited by 6
Sparse Autoencoders Map Brain-LLM Alignment onto Cortical Semantic Topography
Guo, D.-X., Wu, J.-K., & Yiu, S.-M. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.23035 · Cited by 3
“Deniz et al. (2019): Modality-invariant semantic maps (their Figure 3) confirm that the category-region associations in Huth et al. generalize across listening and reading modalities, with concreteness in posterior temporal, affect in anterior temporal, and spatial relations in angular gyrus.”
Nadeau, A., & Craig, J. (2024) · Nineteenth-Century Contexts · doi:10.1080/08905495.2024.2441404 · Cited by 3
“They found that “semantic representations do not differ between listening and reading” (Deniz et al. 2019, 7733).”
Language Cognition and Language Computation - Human and Machine Language Understanding
Wang, S., Ding, N., Lin, N., et al. (2023) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.04788 · Cited by 3
“In terms of language research, researchers have gradually begun to use computational modeling methods to study the language understanding process of the human brain under experimental stimulation conditions of natural texts [19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26].”
BackgroundCortical time-course of evidence accumulation during semantic processing
Ghazaryan, G., van Vliet, M., Lammi, L., Lindh‐Knuutila, T., Kivisaari, S. L., Hultén, A., & Salmelin, R. H. (2023) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-023-05611-6 · Cited by 3
Long, L., Yang, M., Kriegeskorte, N., Jacobs, J., Remez, R. E., Sperling, M. R., Sharan, A. D., Lega, B. C., Burks, A., Worrell, G. A., et al. (2020) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-95141/v1 · Cited by 6
Aligning Text/Speech Representations from Multimodal Models with MEG Brain Activity During Listening
Srijith, P. K., Pahwa, K., Mamidi, R., Bapi, R. S., Gupta, M., & Oota, S. R. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1748 · Cited by 1
“…Transformer-based language models exhibit a high degree of alignment with brain activity when participants engage in reading or listening naturalistic stories (Toneva and Wehbe, 2019; Deniz et al., 2019; Schrimpf et al., 2021; Millet et al., 2022; Vaidya et al., 2022; Caucheteux and King, 2022).”
The Cognitive Foundations of Reading
Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. (2020) · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-44195-1_3 · Cited by 3
Divergences between Language Models and Human BrainsPreprint
Zhou, Y., Liu, E., Neubig, G., Tarr, M. J., & Wehbe, L. (2023) · PubMed · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.09308 · Cited by 5
“This observation aligns with previous research indicating that most language experiments with naturalistic stimuli reveal bilateral language representations [Wehbe et al., 2014b, Huth et al., 2016, Deniz et al., 2019, Toneva et al., 2022].”
Rapid cortical mapping with cross-participant encoding models
Tang, J., & Huth, A. G. (2026) · Imaging Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/imag.a.1349 · Cited by 1
“…in each region ( de Heer et al., 2017; Eickenberg et al., 2017; G üç l ü & van Gerven, 2015; LeBel et al., 2021; Wehbe et al., 2014) and identify regions that perform similar functions across different tasks ( C. Chen et al., 2026; Deniz et al., 2019; Popham et al., 2021; Tang, Du, et al., 2023).”
Self-citationInterpreting Brain Responses to Language with Sparse Features from Language Models
Lepori, M. A., Kay, K., & Tuckute, G. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.06857 · Cited by 2
“Brain Data We used brain responses from prior work (Tuckute et al., 2025), in which eight proficient English speakers underwent ultra-high-field 7 Tesla (7T) fMRI while listening to 200 linguistically diverse sentences, each repeated three times in pseudorandomized order.”
Reason to Play: Behavioral and Brain Alignment Between Frontier LRMs and Human Game LearnersPreprint
Csaba, B., Kumar, S., Andrews, A. T. D., Hunt, L. T., Summerfield, C., Tenenbaum, J. B., Costa, R. P., Mattar, M. G., & Tomov, M. S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.08019 · Cited by 1
The language network responds robustly to sentences across tasks
Gao, R., Cheung, C., Siegelman, M., Pongos, A. L. A., Kean, H., Tanner, A., Fedorenko, E. G., & Ivanova, A. A. (2026) · Imaging Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/imag.a.1283 · Cited by 3
“…are active during both production and comprehension, process written, spoken, and signed language, and respond to typologically diverse languages ( Deniz et al., 2019; Fedorenko et al., 2010; Malik-Moraleda, Ayyash et al., 2022; Menenti et al., 2011; Neville et al., 1998; Regev et al., 2013;…”
Augustin, M., & Østergaard, S. D. (2026) · Acta Neuropsychiatrica · doi:10.1017/neu.2026.10062 · Cited by 2
“While earlier findings supported the concept that hearing and reading language activate different brain networks (Buchweitz et al ., 2009), a more recent study showed that both spoken and written language activate the same regions overall (Deniz et al ., 2019).”
Narrative engagement in story listening: The challenge of age and vision loss.
Mathiesen, S. L., Grenier, A., Wittich, W., Sukhai, M. A., & Herrmann, B. (2025) · Journal of Aging Studies · doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2025.101355 · Cited by 2
Kaya, K., Kurudayıoğlu, M., Yıldırım, K., Galeza, A., & Rasinski, T. V. (2025) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2025.102720 · Cited by 2
Can a short math video enhance the brain’s mathematical networks?Preprint
Amalric, M., Roveyaz, P., & Dehaene, S. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.08.09.503350 · Cited by 3
Using Sensory Time-cue to enable Unsupervised Multimodal Meta-learningPreprint
Liu, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.07879 · Cited by 1
“Deniz et al [13] found that the representation of semantic information across human cerebral cortex during listening versus reading is invariant to stimulus modalities.”
BackgroundKruchinina, O. V., Петровна, С. Е., & Galperina, E. I. (2020) · Human Physiology · doi:10.1134/s036211972003010x · Cited by 2
Instruction-Tuned Video-Audio Models Elucidate Functional Specialization in the Brain
Oota, S., Pahwa, K., Jindal, P., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.08277 · Cited by 2
“Specifically, variance partitioning separates the brain response variance that can be attributed to two models based on their unique and overlapping contributions (Vaidya et al., 2022; Deniz et al., 2019).”
Divergences between Language Models and Human Brains
Zhou, Y.-C., Liu, E., Neubig, G., et al. (2024) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.52202/079017-4382 · Cited by 2
“This observation aligns with previous research indicating that most language experiments with naturalistic stimuli reveal bilateral language representations (Wehbe et al., 2014a; Huth et al., 2016; Deniz et al., 2019; Toneva et al., 2022).”
A two-dimensional space of linguistic representations shared across individualsPreprint
Tuckute, G., Lee, E. J., Ou, Y., Fedorenko, E. G., & Kay, K. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.05.21.655330 · Cited by 1
“For example, using fMRI, Huth et al. (2016) reported differences in semantic tuning (preferences for linguistic input that express particular meanings) across the brain, including in frontal and temporal language areas (see also Deniz et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2020).”
InfluentialContextual Semantic Relevance Tracks fMRI BOLD Responses During Naturalistic Speech Comprehension
Sun, K., & Wang, R. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.15856 · Cited by 1
“Our findings are consistent with Deniz et al. (2019).”
Visual semantic tuning across the cortex shifts between tasks
Zhang, T.-J., & Gallant, J. L. (2026) · bioRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.02.19.706797 · Cited by 1
“Voxelwise modeling (Naselaris et al., 2011; Nishimoto et al., 2011; Huth et al., 2012, 2016; Deniz et al., 2019; Lescroart and Gallant, 2019; Nunez-Elizalde et al., 2019) was used to quantify semantic tuning across the brain in each of the two experiments.”
Self-citationRepresentations of semantic relations in the human cerebral cortex
Chen, C., Gong, X. L., Deniz, F., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.02.19.706815 · Cited by 1
“That work has shown that each voxel is preferentially selective for certain concepts, and that the cortical organization of concept selectivity is largely consistent across individuals (Huth et al. 2016; Deniz et al. 2019; Popham et al. 2021; Chen, Gong, et al. 2024).”
InfluentialSelf-citationHow does longer temporal context enhance multimodal narrative video processing in the brain?
Jindal, P., Khandelwal, A., Gupta, M., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.07570 · Cited by 1
“The choice of these specific permutation test configurations is based on established methodologies in previous research (Deniz et al., 2019; Reddy & Wehbe, 2021; Oota et al., 2024).”
Using computational semantics to study meaning in the brain
Fodor, J., & Suzuki, S. (2025) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106514
Neural decoding of autobiographical mental image features with a general semantic model
Anderson, A. J., Fernandino, L., Gross, W. L., Rey, H. G., & Binder, J. R. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-65541-1 · Cited by 2
Optimizing Language Model Embeddings to Voxel Activity Improves Brain Activity PredictionsPreprint
Negi, A., Tseng, C., Núñez-Elizalde, A. O., Gong, X. L., & Deniz, F. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.09.18.676935 · Cited by 1
“Early studies established that static lexical embeddings can predict brain responses during both listening and reading (Huth et al. 2016; Deniz et al. 2019).”
Self-citationBeyond Grid-Locked Voxels: Neural Response Functions for Continuous Brain Encoding
Chen, H.-M., Jamison, K. W., Sabuncu, M., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.07342 · Cited by 1
“The fMRI loss is defined as: Where α is set to 0.1 during training, which balances absolute error minimization (via MSE) with representational alignment (via cosine similarity).”
InfluentialOptimising 7T‐fMRI for Imaging Regions of Magnetic Susceptibility
Frisby, S. L., Correia, M. M., Zhang, M., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv · doi:10.1002/hbm.70621 · Cited by 1
“A recent study used pTx to improve image quality in ventral anterior temporal regions for echo-planar imaging (EPI) 7T fMRI (Ding et al. 2022). pTx improved tSNR across the brain compared to a standard sequence, particularly in the temporal lobes.”
Cortical tracking of language structures: Modality-dependent and independent responses
Zhang, M., Riecke, L., & Bonte, M. L. (2024) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2024.07.012 · Cited by 1
“Moreover, based on previous fMRI studies targeting modality-independent semantic processing of words and narratives (Booth et al., 2002; Deniz et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2018), we expected that this putative neural tracking of words in the auditory and visual modality involves overlapping regions…”
BackgroundInfluentialDong, J., Yan, H. J., Mei, L., Wang, G., Qu, J., Liu, X., Xu, S., Jiang, W., Zheng, A., & Feng, G. (2024) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2024.02.030 · Cited by 2
Deep Learning Architecture Reduction for fMRI Data
Alvarez-Gonzalez, R., & Méndez-Vázquez, A. (2022) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci12020235 · Cited by 1
“Two recent neuroimaging studies [1,2] have decoded the structure and semantic content of static visual images from human brain activity.”
BackgroundBehavior measures are predicted by how information is encoded in an individual's brain
Williams, J., & Wehbe, L. (2021) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.06048 · Cited by 1
“160 seconds) of predicted fMRI data, similar to the permutation test used by Deniz et al.[19] to account for autocorrelation in voxel responses.”
MethodInfluentialWhat Brain Data Adds to Language Model Training
Merlin, G., Moussa, O., & Toneva, M. (2026) · Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.conll-main.12
“The second dataset, provided by Deniz et al. 2019, consists of brain recordings from six participants who read and listened to 11 stories from The Moth Radio Hour.”
InfluentialA Mathematical Analysis of Texts of Greek Classical Literature and Their Connections
Matricciani, E. (2025) · Open Journal of Statistics · doi:10.4236/ojs.2025.151001 · Cited by 3
Decoding concept representations in aphasia after strokePreprint
Tang, J., Millanski, C., Chen, A., Wauters, L., Anders, J., Shamapant, S., Wilson, S. M., Huth, A. G., & Henry, M. L. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.04.07.717076
“In neurologically healthy participants, concepts are encoded by distributed patterns of brain activity that are largely consistent across individuals 13 , stimulus modalities 20,21,29 , and languages 30 .”
Self-citationGoals Drive Adaptive Analysis of Linguistic Features During Reading
Alex, P., Schwarz, J., Tatler, B., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.09.25.754337
“…system is likely optimised through lifelong experience for extracting semantic and discourse-level information under default conditions (e.g., Deniz et al., 2019; Swinney, 1979), and thus participants would have naturally read for meaning even without explicit instructions (i.e., defaulting…”
Behavioral and Brain Responses to Language Reflect Different Levels of Linguistic Representation
de Varda, A. G., Berzak, Y., Fedorenko, E., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.08.21.746238
“…DeLong et al., 2005; Federmeier et al., 2007; Henderson et al., 2016; Shain et al., 2020; Heilbron et al., 2022) and to higher-level aspects of linguistic representation, including the construction of linguistic meaning (e.g., Huth et al., 2016; Deniz et al., 2019; Tuckute et al., 2024b, 2025).”
Visual-Semantic Tuning across the Cortex Shifts between Tasks
Zhang, T., & Gallant, J. L. (2026) · eNeuro · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0183-26.2026 · Cited by 1
“Voxelwise modeling (Naselaris et al., 2011; Nishimoto et al., 2011; Huth et al., 2012, 2016; Deniz et al., 2019; Lescroart and Gallant, 2019; Nunez-Elizalde et al., 2019) was used to quantify visual-semantic tuning across the brain in each of the two experiments.”
Self-citationDecoding EEG Signals to Explore Next-Word Predictability in the Human Brain
Quach, B. M., Nguyen, B., Gurrin, C., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.18321
Computational Counterfactuals Reveal Non-Additive Audiovisual Semantics in Natural Movie Responses
Li, M.-W. (2026) · bioRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.07.12.738026
“This fits with evidence that natural meaning is distributed across large cortical maps and that semantic representations can be partially shared across input formats while still retaining modality-and region-dependent structure 26,32,33 .”
Neural Coding of Multiple Linguistic Components During Reading Comprehension Across Development
Chen, J., Feng, X., Zhang, J. I.-X., Tang, C., Liu, L., Fan, S., Zhao, N., Lei, Y., Yang, X., Meng, X., et al. (2026) · Neurobiology of Language · doi:10.1162/nol.a.286
“For instance, neural responses to semantic content (Deniz et al., 2019; Huth et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2020) and syntactic complexity (Blank et al., 2016) are widely distributed across frontal and temporal language areas, but not confined to specific regions.”
Hillis, M. E., & Kraemer, D. J. M. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.04.11.648265
“In one example, Honey and colleagues 5 found that in English-Russian bilinguals who listened to the same story in each language, neural responses were language-specific in early auditory areas, but activations in anterior temporal, parietal, and frontal cortices were shared across languages.”
Text comprehension across print and audio: a person-centered mixed methods study of learner profiles
Singh, A. (2026) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2026.102483
The intrinsic cortical geometry of reading
Benn, R. A., Holmes, A., Scholz, R., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.03.10.641861
Oota, S., Khandelwal, A., Pahwa, K., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.19352
“A number of studies have used text-based language models have been shown to predict both text-and speech-evoked brain responses with high fidelity (Jain & Huth, 2018; Deniz et al., 2019; Toneva & Wehbe, 2019; Caucheteux & King, 2022; Antonello et al., 2021; Oota et al., 2022a, 2024b).”
Independent-Component-Based Encoding Models of Brain Activity During Story Comprehension
Hari, K., Binhuraib, T., Li, J., et al. (2026) · Proceedings of Cognitive Computational Neuroscience 2026 · doi:10.32470/05a5frg1
“Encoding models (EMs) have become a central tool for relating complex, naturalistic stimuli to brain activity, particularly in fMRI studies of language comprehension (Deniz et al., 2019; Huth et al., 2016; Wehbe et al., 2014).”
Lärarstudenters språkutveckling – att bygga ordförråd och språklig medvetenhet med ljudböcker
Geer, B. D. (2026) · Högre Utbildning · doi:10.23865/hu.v16.7443
“Studenternas upplevelser av projektet har varit övervägande positiva och bekräftar de goda effekterna av högläsning och annan uppläst text som uppnåtts med barn och unga av Deniz et al. (2019), Mol och Bus (2011) samt Wedin (2009 och 2011).”
Rapid cortical mapping with cross-participant encoding models
Tang, J., & Huth, A. G. (2026) · bioRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.03.26.714320
“…et al., 2011; Seeliger et al., 2019; Visconti di Oleggio Castello et al., 2020), and reading or listening to stories (de Heer et al., 2017; Deniz et al., 2019; Huth et al., 2016; Jain et al., 2020; Millet et al., 2022; Nastase et al., 2021; Schrimpf et al., 2021; Vaidya et al., 2022;…”
Self-citationLinguistic properties and model scale in brain encoding: from small to compressed language modelsPreprint
Oota, S. R., Rowtula, V., Satya Sai Srinath Namburi, G. N. V. V., Pahwa, K., Khandelwal, A., Gupta, M., Chakraborty, T., & Bapi, R. S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.07547 · Cited by 1
“Using fMRI recordings collected while participants listened to naturalistic stories from the Moth Radio Hour dataset (Deniz et al., 2019), we evaluate language models from three model families (LLaMA-3.”
InfluentialDistinct post-sentence neural patterns representing lexical items vs. sentence integration
Gwon, Y., & Chung, C. K. (2026) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2026.121703
Nadeau, A. (2026) · Pedagogy · doi:10.1215/15314200-12097290
“A 2019 fMRI study found no difference in how the brain processes written and aural texts (Deniz et al. 2019: 7733) and a large study of ninety-one college-educated adults found “comparable comprehension and retention of text regardless of the modality of presentation” (Rogowsky, Cal-houn, and…”
Concreteness shapes semantic representations in bilingual brainsPreprint
Lamarre, M., Gong, X. L., Chen, C., & Deniz, F. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2025.12.23.696243
“The FIR model created time-shifted versions of each feature space at delays of 2, 4, 6, and 8 seconds to capture the hemodynamic response of individual voxels, following prior work (Huth et al. 2016; Deniz et al. 2019; Nakai et al. 2021).”
Self-citationBrain Encoding Oriented Text Semantic Disentangling and Analysis
Zhang, Y., Yin, C., Xia, R., & Li, P. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm66473.2025.11356625
“So we apply a FIR model 1 on R , following previous work [11], [12].”
Auditory representations of words during silent visual readingPreprint
Li, J., Doerig, A., & Cichy, R. M. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2025.12.12.693932
“This sample size is based on earlier studies using encoding models to model human language processing 19,25,73 that also used an intensive sampling strategy, extensively recording individual participant data in order to ensure sufficient training and testing data for within-participant encoding…”
InfluentialFehner, W., Fogarty, M., Tang, J., Wilhelm, D., Bajracharya, A., Markow, Z. E., Hines, A., Trobaugh, J. W., Huth, A. G., & Culver, J. P. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2025.12.03.692158 · Cited by 1
“Prior fMRI work shows that visual and auditory semantics share a common neural representation [10, 15, 74, 75].”
Self-citationZada, Z., Nastase, S. A., Speer, S. P. H., Mwilambwe-Tshilobo, L., Tsoi, L., Burns, S. M., Falk, E. B., Hasson, U., & Tamir, D. (2025) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2025.11.004 · Cited by 14
“Many recent studies have applied them during passive language comprehension (Caucheteux & King, 2022; de Heer et al., 2017; Deniz et al., 2019; Goldstein et al., 2022; Heilbron et al., 2022; Huth et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2024; Schrimpf et al., 2021).”
On the Analogy between Human Brain and LLMs: Spotting Key Neurons in Grammar Perception
Norouzi, S. S., Masjedi, M., & Hitzler, P. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.06519
“Deniz et al. found that there is a shared neural basis for language meaning across modalities (Deniz et al. 2019).”
SED-GPT: A Non-Invasive Method for Long-Sequence Fine-Grained Semantics and Emotions Decoding
Cui, W., Wang, Z., & Ма, Л. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app152011100 · Cited by 1
Kubo, R., Nishimoto, S., & Nakai, T. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.06.17.660057
Exploring the Design Space of Children Audio Players
Brulé, É., & Howland, K. (2025) · ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC) · doi:10.1145/3713043.3731537
“…instance, increased access to audiobooks in particular may be useful for the development of literacy as it appears that “the semantic representations evoked by listening versus reading are almost identical” [18]; while musical perception skills supports phonological awareness and reading skills[7].”
Modulation of decodable semantic features of brain activity via selection attention
Okuno, A., Yamaguchi, H. Q., Nishimoto, S., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.06.13.659505
“…that shared semantic information can be extracted from brain activity, consistent with previous studies reporting shared brain networks for modality-independent semantics processing (Regev et al. 2013; Deniz et al. 2019; Nakai, Yamaguchi, and Nishimoto 2021; Popham et al. 2021; Tang and Huth 2025).”
Gao, S., Nash, R., Burns, S. M., & Leong, Y. C. (2025) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsaf043 · Cited by 1
“Our goal was to fit encoding models that map semantic information to observed and predicted fMRI data (Naselaris et al. 2011, Deniz et al. 2019, Caucheteux et al. 2023).”
Marín-Marín, L., Eisenhauer, S., Alam, T. R. G., Margulies, D. S., Smallwood, J., & Jefferies, E. (2025) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1876-24.2025
“Many models of language processing assume that input modality primarily a ff ects unimodal processing stages, while semantic and syntactic processes are heteromodal (Friederici, 2011; Price, 2012; Carreiras et al., 2014; Deniz et al., 2019).”
Asymmetric representation of symmetric semantic information in the human brain
Wang, J.-X., Kawahata, K., Blanc, A., Maeda, N., Nishimoto, S., & Nishida, S. (2025) · Neuroimage: Reports · doi:10.1016/j.ynirp.2025.100243
“…used to investigate cortical distributed representations of semantic information associated with thousands of words for data-driven approaches (Deniz et al., 2019; Güçlü and van Gerven, 2015; Huth et al., 2012, 2016; Matsumoto et al., 2022; Nishida et al., 2020a, 2021; Popham et al., 2021;…”
Language Models and Brain Alignment: Brain Encoding and Decoding
Oota, S. R., & Bapi, R. S. (2024) · Joint International Conference on Data Science & Management of Data (CODS-COMAD) · doi:10.1145/3703323.3704280
“- Phoneme rate and presence of phonemes [10, 14, 18].”
Rødland, E., Melleby, K. M., & Specht, K. (2022) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2022.806520 · Cited by 3
Geng, S., Guo, W., Xu, K., Jia, T., Zhou, W., Blakemore, C. B., Tan, L., Cao, M., & Feng, J. (2021) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2021.11.25.470068
Li, Y., Xing, H.-B., Zhang, L.-J., et al. (2021) · doi:10.20944/preprints202106.0296.v1
“Previous research has shown that the left posterior fusiform gyrus is much involved in visual word form processing after the basic visual processes (McCandliss, Cohen, and Dehaene, 2003; Dehaene & Cohen, 2011) and that both listening and reading comprehension is supported by widely distributed brain regions in the tem…”
BackgroundInfluentialUnderstanding the human language processor
Hunter, P. (2020) · EMBO Reports · doi:10.15252/embr.202052028 · Cited by 1
“A 2019 study therefore represented a major breakthrough as the researchers looked at the brain’s reaction to whole stories rather than words or sentences (Deniz et al , 2019).”
Türkiye Türkçesinde mana birleşmesi problemi: “Gaye”, “Hedef”, “Maksat”, “Amaç” örneği
Yayla, Y. (2020) · RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi · doi:10.29000/rumelide.791112
Metadata
- Authors
- Deniz, F., Nunez-Elizalde, A. O., Huth, A. G., & Gallant, J. L.
- Affiliations
- International Computer Science Institute (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Society for Neuroscience
- Published
- 2019-08-19
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 39
- Pages
- 7722-7736
- ISSN
- 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-2401
- PMC
- PMC6764208
- OpenAlex
- W2968395892
- Semantic Scholar
- 44731d68e7e65d7bd6807b53b348ee93c107411f
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 78
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 12.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (CCF0-939370, 0939370, 1208203)
- Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
- National Institutes of Health (5r01ey019684-08)
- Advanced Research Projects Agency
- National Eye Institute (R01-EY019684, R01EY022454, EY022454, EY019684)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
- Keywords
- semantic representation, spoken language, written language, narrative stories, language comprehension, cerebral cortex
- MeSH terms
- Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Auditory Perception, Cerebral Cortex, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Neurological, Photic Stimulation, Reading, Semantics, Visual Perception, 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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