Surprisal from Larger Transformer-based Language Models Predicts fMRI Data More Poorly
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
There has been considerable interest in using surprisal from Transformer-based language models (LMs) as predictors of human sentence processing difficulty. Recent work has observed an inverse scaling relationship between Transformers' per-word estimated probability and the predictive power of their surprisal estimates on reading times, showing that LMs with more parameters and trained on more data are less predictive of human reading times. However, these studies focused on predicting latency-based measures. Tests on brain imaging data have not shown a trend in any direction when using a relatively small set of LMs, leaving open the possibility that the inverse scaling phenomenon is constrained to latency data. This study therefore conducted a more comprehensive evaluation using surprisal estimates from 17 pre-trained LMs across three different LM families on two functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) datasets. Results show that the inverse scaling relationship between models' per-word estimated probability and model fit on both datasets still obtains, resolving the inconclusive results of previous work and indicating that this trend is not specific to latency-based measures.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Jun 2025.
Builds on
16 of 43 references.
References · 16
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2022OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Modelscited by 3,512
- 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,918
- 2022GPT-NeoX-20B: An Open-Source Autoregressive Language Modelcited by 713
- 2020On the Predictive Power of Neural Language Models for Human Real-Time Comprehension Behaviorcited by 119
- 2022Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times?cited by 113
- 2016Recurrent Neural Network Grammarscited by 109
- 2020Human Sentence Processing: Recurrence or Attention?cited by 51
- 2017The Natural Stories Corpuscited by 40
- 2024Frequency Explains the Inverse Correlation of Large Language Models' Size, Training Data Amount, and Surprisal's Fit to Reading Timescited by 39
- 2024How to Compute the Probability of a Wordcited by 36
- 2022Context Limitations Make Neural Language Models More Human-Likecited by 34
4 more
- 2022Syntactic Surprisal From Neural Models Predicts, But Underestimates, Human Processing Difficulty From Syntactic Ambiguitiescited by 30
- 2024Leading Whitespaces of Language Models' Subword Vocabulary Pose a Confound for Calculating Word Probabilitiescited by 30
- 2024What Are Large Language Models Mapping to in the Brain? A Case Against Over-Reliance on Brain Scorescited by 10
- 2024The Impact of Token Granularity on the Predictive Power of Language Model Surprisalcited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.