Cited by 70Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentTopic Modeling

Deep Artificial Neural Networks Reveal a Distributed Cortical Network Encoding Propositional Sentence-Level Meaning

Open access
Anderson, Andrew James, Kiela, Douwe, Binder, Jeffrey R., Fernandino, Leonardo, Humphries, Colin J., Conant, Lisa L., Raizada, Rajeev D. S., Grimm, Scott +1 more·2021·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Understanding how and where in the brain sentence-level meaning is constructed from words presents a major scientific challenge. Recent advances have begun to explain brain activation elicited by sentences using vector models of word meaning derived from patterns of word co-occurrence in text corpora. These studies have helped map out semantic representation across a distributed brain network spanning temporal, parietal, and frontal cortex. However, it remains unclear whether activation patterns within regions reflect unified representations of sentence-level meaning, as opposed to superpositions of context-independent component words. This is because models have typically represented sentences as “bags-of-words” that neglect sentence-level structure. To address this issue, we interrogated fMRI activation elicited as 240 sentences were read by 14 participants (9 female, 5 male), using sentences encoded by a recurrent deep artificial neural-network trained on a sentence inference task (InferSent). Recurrent connections and nonlinear filters enable InferSent to transform sequences of word vectors into unified “propositional” sentence representations suitable for evaluating intersentence entailment relations. Using voxelwise encoding modeling, we demonstrate that InferSent predicts elements of fMRI activation that cannot be predicted by bag-of-words models and sentence models using grammatical rules to assemble word vectors. This effect occurs throughout a distributed network, which suggests that propositional sentence-level meaning is represented within and across multiple cortical regions rather than at any single site. In follow-up analyses, we place results in the context of other deep network approaches (ELMo and BERT) and estimate the degree of unpredicted neural signal using an “experiential” semantic model and cross-participant encoding. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTA modern-day scientific challenge is to understand how the human brain transforms word sequences into representations of sentence meaning. A recent approach, emerging from advances in functional neuroimaging, big data, and machine learning, is to computationally model meaning, and use models to predict brain activity. Such models have helped map a cortical semantic information-processing network. However, how unified sentence-level information, as opposed to word-level units, is represented throughout this network remains unclear. This is because models have typically represented sentences as unordered “bags-of-words.” Using a deep artificial neural network that recurrently and nonlinearly combines word representations into unified propositional sentence representations, we provide evidence that sentence-level information is encoded throughout a cortical network, rather than in a single region.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.1152-20.2021

Cites

93 of 93 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?

  • Cognitive operational functions are based on coordinated activity of key distributed neural networks rather than isolated brain regions.

    “Nevertheless, cognitive operational functions are based on coordinated activity of key distributed neural networks rather than isolated brain regions (Anderson et al., 2021).”

    From Enhancement of modern defense capabilities by convergence of cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence (2026) · cites this paper as Anderson et al., 2021

    The Conclusion and ‘How the results relate to other brain imaging studies’ report that sentence-level meaning is represented across multiple cortical regions rather than confined to one site. The claim extends that finding to cognitive functions generally and asserts coordinated network activity; the paper says it cannot determine whether the regions construct representations through interacting hubs. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • These regions operate within dynamic large-scale networks, including salience and executive control networks, which underpin cognitive flexibility and situational readiness.

    “Given their role in attentional allocation and multisensory integration, these regions operate within dynamic large-scale networks, including the salience and executive control networks, which underpin cognitive flexibility and situational readiness (Anderson et al., 2021; Menon, 2015).”

    From Enhancement of modern defense capabilities by convergence of cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence (2026) · cites this paper as Anderson et al., 2021

    The Cortical language network section describes distributed temporal, parietal, and frontal regions, supporting the claim that the regions form part of a large-scale network. But the paper does not place them in salience or executive control networks or link them to cognitive flexibility or situational readiness. In How the results relate to other brain imaging studies, it says the timing and interactions among regions remain unclear (page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Default mode, salience, and executive large-scale networks facilitate task switching, self-monitoring, and environmental scanning.

    “Default mode, salience and executive large-scale networks facilitate task switching, self-monitoring (Morese et al., 2018), and environmental scanning (Anderson et al., 2021; Menon, 2015).”

    From Enhancement of modern defense capabilities by convergence of cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence (2026) · cites this paper as Anderson et al., 2021

    The Anderson et al. (2021) citation is attached to the environmental-scanning portion of the sentence. The Procedure and cortical-language-network passages describe sentence reading and models of sentence meaning, not environmental scanning. Searches for that term and for the named large-scale networks found no passage addressing the attributed function. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 2

  1. Subramanian S, Trischler A, Bengio Y, Pal CJ (2018) Learning general pur- pose distributed sentence representations via large scale multi-task learn- ing. In: Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Vancouver, Canada.
  2. Toneva M, Wehbe L (2019) Interpreting and improving natural-language processing (in machines) with natural language-processing (in the brain). In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp 14928- 14938. Vancouver: Curran.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anderson, A. J., Kiela, D., Binder, J. R., Fernandino, L., Humphries, C. J., Conant, L. L., Raizada, R. D. S., Grimm, S., & Lalor, E. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
  • Meta (United States) (US)
  • Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
  • University of Rochester (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2021-03-22
Volume
41
Issue
18
Pages
4100-4119
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W3136656403
Cited by
70
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
5.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • IARPA (FA8650-14-C-7357)
  • NSF (1652127)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
propositional representation, distributed cortical networks, semantic representation, fMRI decoding, recurrent neural networks, logical consequence, word embeddings, bag-of-words model, ELMo, BERT, temporal cortex, parietal cortex, frontal cortex
MeSH terms
Adult, Cerebral Cortex, Computer Simulation, Female, Humans, Language, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Reading, Semantics, Neural Networks, Computer, Comprehension, Young Adult

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