Exploring Temporal Sensitivity in the Brain Using Multi-timescale Language Models: An EEG Decoding Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The brain’s ability to perform complex computations at varying timescales is crucial, ranging from understanding single words to grasping the overarching narrative of a story. Recently, multi-timescale long short-term memory (MT-LSTM) models (Mahto et al. 2020; Jain et al. 2020) have been introduced, which use temporally tuned parameters to induce sensitivity to different timescales of language processing (i.e., related to near/distant words). However, there has not been an exploration of the relationship between such temporally tuned information processing in MT-LSTMs and the brain’s processing of language using high temporal resolution recording modalities, such as electroencephalography (EEG). To bridge this gap, we used an EEG dataset recorded while participants listened to Chapter 1 of “Alice in Wonderland” and trained ridge regression models to predict the temporally tuned MT-LSTM embeddings from EEG responses. Our analysis reveals that EEG signals can be used to predict MT-LSTM embeddings across various timescales. For longer timescales, our models produced accurate predictions within an extended time window of ±2 s around word onset, while for shorter timescales, significant predictions are confined to a narrower window ranging from −180 ms to 790 ms. Intriguingly, we observed that short timescale information is not only processed in the vicinity of word onset but also at more distant time points. These observations underscore the parallels and discrepancies between computational models and the neural mechanisms of the brain. As word embeddings are used more as in silico models of semantic representation in the brain, a more explicit consideration of timescale-dependent processing enables more targeted explorations of language processing in humans and machines.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".