Interpreting Brain Responses to Language with Sparse Features from Language Models

Intermediate layers of large language models (LLMs) best predict human brain responses to language, one of the most robust findings in computational neurolinguistics, yet why remains mechanistically unexplained. We address this gap by bridging sparse autoencoders (SAEs) from mechanistic interpretability with neural encoding models, decomposing GPT-2 XL and Llama-3.1-8B into 16K-32K interpretable features per layer. A human-validated taxonomy ($κ\geq 0.74$) reveals that semantic features alone recover 94% of peak encoding performance ($r=0.285$), substantially exceeding variance-matched baselines ($p<0.001$, $d=1.31$). Beyond this aggregate dominance, we test a novel cortical topography prediction: five semantic subcategories derived a priori from three independent neuroscience programs should map onto distinct brain regions. A formal convergence test confirms this alignment (Spearman $ρ=0.72$, $p<0.001$; hypergeometric $p=0.007$), demonstrating that SAE-discovered features recapitulate known cortical semantic organization at a granularity inaccessible to prior methods. SAE features further predict human reading times beyond lexical controls ($Δ\mathrm{logLik}=38.4$, $p<0.001$), and an exploratory prediction-error analysis provides preliminary evidence that the brain additionally encodes unexpected semantic content. Results generalize across English, Chinese, and French.

Language-model representations provide structured, high-dimensional annotations of naturalistic language stimuli and can serve as informative neural predictors during comprehension. We analyzed locked derived data from Brain Treebank, MEG-MASC, and Podcast ECoG with eight frozen language models, blocked encoding models, and matched temporal, nuisance, and representation-capacity controls. Positive held-out prediction and gains over low-level baselines were widespread in source-level summaries. Across Brain Treebank and Podcast ECoG, 67 of 432 evaluable rows met a controlled predictive-only criterion, and model-side feature ablations changed prediction scores in most evaluable source rows. Brain-derived, timing-linked, acoustic, and implanted-signal controls confirmed component-level sensitivity of the analysis pipeline. These findings show that language-model-derived quantities can annotate neural activity during natural speech and text comprehension. Participant-level matched-control advantages were localized rather than uniform, response-profile and feature-specificity contrasts bounded representational or computational interpretations, and complete co-indexed integrated interpretation will require future jointly indexed coverage. Together, the analyses identify language-model features as useful neural predictors and separate predictive usefulness from claims about shared neural organization or language-processing computations.

Brain-language model comparisons often interpret neural prediction scores as evidence that model representations capture brain-relevant language computation. We asked whether language models align with brains, and whether prediction scores are enough to support that claim, using L-PACT, a source-audited framework that evaluates predictive, relational, mechanism-stripping, and reliability-bounded evidence. Across primary naturalistic language neural datasets and derived language-model representations, L-PACT compared real model features with nuisance baselines and severe controls, tested whether model-to-brain profiles reproduced brain-to-brain patterns, recomputed held-out scores after mechanism stripping, and normalized evidence against brain-brain ceilings. The locked analysis set contains 414 predictive-control rows, 2304 relational profile rows, 4320 mechanism-stripping rows, 420 brain-brain ceiling rows, and 146 integrated decision rows. Assay-sensitivity checks showed that brain-brain reliability, brain-as-model run-to-run relational profiles, independent low-level neural and WAV-derived acoustic-envelope gates, and a deterministic implanted-signal simulation can produce positive evidence when expected. Nevertheless, no real model row passed the predictive, relational, mechanism-stripping, or operational Turing-bounded reliability gates; all 146 integrated rows were control-explained. Less stringent single-criterion rules would have counted raw positive predictive, relational, stripping-delta, and ceiling-normalized effects, but L-PACT downgraded them because controls explained the apparent evidence. In the analyzed derived artifact set, the tested language-model representations do not satisfy L-PACT alignment gates; apparent positives are converted into an auditable control-explained taxonomy rather than treated as structural alignment.