MEG Evidence That Modality-Independent Conceptual Representations Contain Semantic and Visual Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The semantic knowledge stored in our brains can be accessed from different stimulus modalities. For example, a picture of a cat and the word "cat" both engage similar conceptual representations. While existing research has found evidence for modality-independent representations, their content remains unknown. Modality-independent representations could be semantic, or they might also contain perceptual features. We developed a novel approach combining word/picture cross-condition decoding with neural network classifiers that learned latent modality-independent representations from MEG data (25 human participants, 15 females, 10 males). We then compared these representations to models representing semantic, sensory, and orthographic features. Results show that modality-independent representations correlate both with semantic and visual representations. There was no evidence that these results were due to picture-specific visual features or orthographic features automatically activated by the stimuli presented in the experiment. These findings support the notion that modality-independent concepts contain both perceptual and semantic representations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".