Identifying and interpreting non-aligned human conceptual representations using language modeling
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The question of whether people's experience in the world shapes conceptual representation and lexical semantics is longstanding. Word-association, feature-listing and similarity rating tasks aim to address this question but require a subjective interpretation of the latent dimensions identified. In this study, we introduce a supervised representational-alignment method that (i) determines whether two groups of individuals share the same basis of a certain category, and (ii) explains in what respects they differ. In applying this method, we show that congenital blindness induces conceptual reorganization in both a-modal and sensory-related verbal domains, and we identify the associated semantic shifts. We first apply supervised feature-pruning to a language model (GloVe) to optimize prediction accuracy of human similarity judgments from word embeddings. Pruning identifies one subset of retained GloVe features that optimizes prediction of judgments made by sighted individuals and another subset that optimizes judgments made by blind. A linear probing analysis then interprets the latent semantics of these feature-subsets by learning a mapping from the retained GloVe features to 65 interpretable semantic dimensions. We applied this approach to seven semantic domains, including verbs related to motion, sight, touch, and amodal verbs related to knowledge acquisition. We find that blind individuals more strongly associate social and cognitive meanings to verbs related to motion or those communicating non-speech vocal utterances (e.g., whimper, moan). Conversely, for amodal verbs, they demonstrate much sparser information. Finally, for some verbs, representations of blind and sighted are highly similar. The study presents a formal approach for studying interindividual differences in word meaning, and the first demonstration of how blindness impacts conceptual representation of everyday verbs.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Mar 2024.
Builds on
6 of 30 references.
References · 6
- 2013Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionalitycited by 3,462
- 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 831
- 2023Similarity of Neural Network Models: A Survey of Functional and Representational Measurescited by 128
- 2021A comparative evaluation and analysis of three generations of Distributional Semantic Modelscited by 19
- 2020Transferred Discrepancy: Quantifying the Difference Between Representationscited by 9
- 2023Enhancing Interpretability using Human Similarity Judgements to Prune Word Embeddingscited by 6
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Uncovering the Computational Ingredients of Human-Like Representations in LLMs
- 2024Human-like object concept representations emerge naturally in multimodal large language models
- 2024A Flexible Method for Behaviorally Measuring Alignment Between Human and Artificial Intelligence Using Representational Similarity Analysis
- 2024Vision-Language Models Align with Human Neural Representations in Concept Processing
- 2025Cat, Rat, Meow: On the Alignment of Language Model and Human Term-Similarity Judgments
- 2025The Representational Alignment between Humans and Language Models is implicitly driven by a Concreteness Effect
- 2026Context-Dependent Affordance Reports in Vision-Language Models
- 2026Auditing Disability Representation in Vision-Language Models