Encoding EEG Signals to Examine Human-Like Next-Word Prediction Behaviour in Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Language models (LMs) are trained to excel at predicting the next word in the sequence given prior context, and humans also share this predictability in reading comprehension. Neuroscience research reveals that next-word predictability influences brain response, as recorded at millisecond resolution using electroencephalography (EEG). While our evidence indicates that advanced LMs achieve accuracies closely aligned with human performance at the next-word prediction task, this raises the question: Does higher prediction accuracy necessarily mean that these models adequately capture the cognitive signals associated with human reading comprehension? Here, we generate regressors for both humans and LMs based on two information measures, including top-1 prediction and surprisal, to predict event-related potential (ERP) elicited from EEG recordings which reflect different stages of cognitive processing during reading. We argue that modelling ERP patterns offers fine-grained analysis of the cognitive plausibility of various LMs during reading. Our results indicate that only surprisal potentially correlates with language-processing ERPs, especially for open-class words with high semantic content. Moreover, our findings challenge the assumption that scaling LMs with increased parameters and computational budgets will consistently lead to improved convergence with human-like linguistic processing.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jul 2026.
Builds on
12 of 49 references.
References · 12
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2024DeepSeekMoE: Towards Ultimate Expert Specialization in Mixture-of-Experts Language Modelscited by 834
- 2022The Debate Over Understanding in AI's Large Language Modelscited by 142
- 2019Neural Language Models as Psycholinguistic Subjects: Representations of Syntactic Statecited by 137
- 2022Training Trajectories of Language Models Across Scalescited by 80
- 2024Frequency Explains the Inverse Correlation of Large Language Models' Size, Training Data Amount, and Surprisal's Fit to Reading Timescited by 37
- 2021A Targeted Assessment of Incremental Processing in Neural LanguageModels and Humanscited by 32
- 2022Syntactic Surprisal From Neural Models Predicts, But Underestimates, Human Processing Difficulty From Syntactic Ambiguitiescited by 30
- 2020Probabilistic Predictions of People Perusing: Evaluating Metrics of Language Model Performance for Psycholinguistic Modelingcited by 22
- 2019Tracking Naturalistic Linguistic Predictions with Deep Neural Language Modelscited by 9
- 2021Towards a Better Understanding Human Reading Comprehension with Brain Signalscited by 8
- 2018Can Entropy Explain Successor Surprisal Effects in Reading?cited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.