Heterogeneous Neural Predictivity from Language Models During Naturalistic Comprehension

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.

Brain-language model alignment is often interpreted as evidence that transformer models implement computations similar to those of the human brain. This assumes that neural predictivity reflects internal computational properties of large language models (LLMs), such as hierarchical contextual processing, predictive coding, or representational compression. An alternative possibility is that brain scores primarily reflect stable lexical-semantic correspondences shared by language models and the brain. Here we tested these interpretations using whole-brain encoding models across Mandarin, English, and French. Across all three languages, transformer representations significantly predicted activity in a distributed network spanning classical language regions, transmodal cortical systems, and subcortical structures. These spatial patterns showed substantial cross-linguistic overlap and remained remarkably stable across layers, providing little evidence that model depth systematically maps onto cortical processing hierarchies. Likewise, contextual transformer embeddings did not consistently outperform static lexical embeddings, despite providing some unique predictive variance. Finally, neither surprisal nor intrinsic dimensionality reproduced the layer-wise profile of brain scores, arguing against prediction and information compression as primary explanations for brain-LLM alignment. Together, these findings suggest that brain-LLM alignment is more robust across languages, transformer depth, and model architectures than previously appreciated, but less informative about shared computational mechanisms. Our results are more consistent with neural predictivity reflecting stable representational structure preserved across model transformations than with a one-to-one correspondence between their underlying computations.

A central goal of cognitive neuroscience is to characterize the features that are represented by human language cortex. Artificial language models (LMs) have emerged as a powerful tool to address this challenge, but studies relating biological and artificial representations are often criticized as relating one black box to another. The present work introduces Augmented Sparse Encoding Models, an encoding framework that replaces dense LM hidden states with hierarchically-organized sparse autoencoder (SAE) features, while explicitly including surprisal as a predictor. Using this approach, we (i) produce interpretations of neural responses and (ii) test whether model-brain alignment reflects primary or idiosyncratic variation in LM representations. Using a high-field 7T fMRI dataset of eight participants listening to 200 linguistically diverse sentences, we first validate our modeling framework by recovering previous interpretations of voxel populations tuned to processing difficulty and meaning abstractness. We then interpret a previously-uncharacterized (but reliable) voxel population and find that it is tuned to people-related content. Next, we show that the fronto-temporal human language network is predicted by a common set of features across its constituent regions, but find that frontal regions are relatively well-explained by surprisal alone, even in the absence of LM-based features. Finally, we show that brain responses during language processing are not merely predictable from an arbitrary set of LM features. Rather, brain responses are best explained by the features that tend to capture the most general information encoded in LM representations, suggesting a nontrivial correspondence between brain and LM language representation.