Experiential, Distributional and Dependency-based Word Embeddings have Complementary Roles in Decoding Brain Activity
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We evaluate 8 different word embedding models on their usefulness for predicting the neural activation patterns associated with concrete nouns. The models we consider include an experiential model, based on crowd-sourced association data, several popular neural and distributional models, and a model that reflects the syntactic context of words (based on dependency parses). Our goal is to assess the cognitive plausibility of these various embedding models, and understand how we can further improve our methods for interpreting brain imaging data. We show that neural word embedding models exhibit superior performance on the tasks we consider, beating experiential word representation model. The syntactically informed model gives the overall best performance when predicting brain activation patterns from word embeddings; whereas the GloVe distributional method gives the overall best performance when predicting in the reverse direction (words vectors from brain images). Interestingly, however, the error patterns of these different models are markedly different. This may support the idea that the brain uses different systems for processing different kinds of words. Moreover, we suggest that taking the relative strengths of different embedding models into account will lead to better models of the brain activity associated with words.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 25 Nov 2017.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 1; 2024: 3; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
8 papers.
- 2024MulCogBench: A Multi-modal Cognitive Benchmark Dataset for Evaluating Chinese and English Computational Language Modelscited by 9
- 2022Connecting Neural Response measurements & Computational Models of language: a non-comprehensive guidecited by 6
- 2024Navigating Brain Language Representations: A Comparative Analysis of Neural Language Models and Psychologically Plausible Modelscited by 4
- 2022Seeing the advantage: visually grounding word embeddings to better capture human semantic knowledgecited by 2
- 2025Prediction is not Explanation: Revisiting the Explanatory Capacity of Mapping Embeddingscited by 2
- 2024Decoding Linguistic Representations of Human Braincited by 1
- 2023Bridging Natural Language Processing and Psycholinguistics: computationally grounded semantic similarity datasets for Basque and Spanishcited by 0
- 2026LLMs Explain't: A Post-Mortem on Semantic Interpretability in Transformer Modelscited by 0
- 2026LLMs Explain't: A Post-Mortem on Semantic Interpretability in Transformer Models30 Jan 2026
- 2025Prediction is not Explanation: Revisiting the Explanatory Capacity of Mapping Embeddings19 Aug 2025
- 2024Decoding Linguistic Representations of Human Brain30 Jul 2024
- 2024Navigating Brain Language Representations: A Comparative Analysis of Neural Language Models and Psychologically Plausible Models30 Apr 2024
- 2024MulCogBench: A Multi-modal Cognitive Benchmark Dataset for Evaluating Chinese and English Computational Language Models2 Mar 2024
- 2023Bridging Natural Language Processing and Psycholinguistics: computationally grounded semantic similarity datasets for Basque and Spanish19 Apr 2023
- 2022Connecting Neural Response measurements & Computational Models of language: a non-comprehensive guide10 Mar 2022
- 2022Seeing the advantage: visually grounding word embeddings to better capture human semantic knowledge21 Feb 2022