Back

Prediction, Syntax and Semantic Grounding in the Brain and Large Language Models

Koelbl, N.; Rampp, S.; Kaltenhaeuser, M.; Tziridis, K.; Maier, A.; Kinfe, T.; Chavarriaga, R.; Krauss, P.; Schilling, A.

2025-06-05 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.06.05.658007 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Language comprehension involves continuous prediction of upcoming words, with syntactic structure and semantic meaning intertwined in the human brain. To date, few studies have used combined magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroen-cephalography (EEG) measurements to investigate how syntactic processing, predictive coding, and semantic grounding interact in real time. Here we present the first combined MEG-EEG investigation of syntactic processing and semantic grounding under naturalistic conditions. Twenty-nine healthy participants listened to a German audio book while their neural responses were recorded. Event-related fields and event-related potentials for four word classes - nouns, verbs, adjectives, and proper nouns - showed highly reproducible, characteristic spatio-temporal signatures, including significant pre-onset activity for nouns, suggesting enhanced predictability of this word class. Source-space analyses revealed pronounced activation in the pre- and post-central gyri for nouns, suggesting a deeper semantic grounding of nouns in e.g. sensory experiences than verbs. To further investigate predictive mechanisms, we analyzed the hidden representations of the large language model Llama. By comparing the transformer-based representations to neural responses, we explored the relationship between computational language models and human brain activity, offering new insights into syntactic and semantic prediction. These findings highlight the power of simultaneous MEG-EEG recordings in unraveling the predictive, syntactic, and semantic mechanisms that underlie the comprehension of natural language.

Published in Scientific Reports (predicted rank #3) · training set

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.