Similar Choices, Different Attention: Cross-Modal Associations in Humans and Vision-Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly useful computational models of human language processing, but it remains unclear whether vision-language learning makes text representations more human-like during natural reading. Here, we address this question by comparing tightly matched LLM and vision-language model (VLM) pairs under a strictly text-only setting, allowing us to isolate the effect of multimodal training history from online visual input or cross-modal fusion. We evaluate model alignment with a human natural-reading dataset that includes whole-cortex fMRI responses and synchronized eye-tracking saccades. Our findings demonstrate that multimodal pretraining may not confer a uniform, global advantage in human alignment during natural reading, indicating that language-internal representations remain the key factor for modeling human text processing. However, the VLM advantage could emerge more selectively when sentences contain stronger visual semantic content, with converging evidence from both fMRI and eye-movement alignments. Together, our findings provide a controlled in silico framework for testing how visual learning history shapes model-human alignment of language processing, suggesting that multimodal pretraining contributes selectively rather than globally to human-like language representations during natural reading.

Vision-language models (VLMs) have rapidly evolved into general-purpose multimodal reasoners with strong zero-shot generalization. In this context, VLMs could greatly benefit the analysis of human gaze and attention, a central task in human behavior understanding that requires reasoning about the physical scene as well as the activity, interactions, and social context. However, the extent to which VLMs can reliably understand human gaze and related attentional behaviors remains largely unexplored. In this work, we present EyeVLM, a systematic evaluation framework for gaze understanding in VLMs across two complementary dimensions: tasks and models. To assess gaze understanding capabilities, we focus on two core tasks. The first, gaze following, i.e., predicting the 2D location where a person is looking, has a geometric and visual processing focus, requiring a precise understanding of the human face, attention direction, 3D scene structure, and spatial grounding of attended targets. The second, social gaze prediction, requires social and relational reasoning over multi-person interactions (e.g., mutual gaze and shared attention), and may benefit more from the LLM semantic reasoning capabilities within VLMs. Regarding models, EyeVLM evaluates these tasks in two ways: a zero-shot setting with a diverse set of state-of-the-art open- and closed-source VLMs, exploring different prompting strategies; and a fine-tuning approach based on task-specific QA pairs, studying the impact of model scale and data scale. As benchmarks, we rely on existing gaze understanding datasets and perform a systematic comparison with state-of-the-art purely visual models. Overall, our results show that current VLMs lack precise gaze understanding capabilities. While standard training helps reduce the gap with visual models, significant improvements are still needed.

Visual perception depends on top-down goals and bottom-up sensory mechanisms. Vision-language models implement both, allowing us to treat each component as a separable hypothesis about what drives where we look. We compared spatial attention maps from six vision-language models against human fixation heatmaps recorded on 200 images during two tasks (general description and social captioning). The six models spanned a 2$\times$2 factorial of CNN vs.\ ViT encoders crossed with LSTM vs.\ Transformer decoders, plus Molmo 7B-D and Qwen3.5 9B. We found that both decoder and encoder architecture shaped alignment, but decoder choice dominated. LSTM vs.\ Transformer decoders increased alignment by 40--50 percentage points (80--87% vs.\ 40--59% of the human noise ceiling). In contrast, CNN vs.\ ViT encoders contributed a secondary 5--20 point advantage depending on decoder family, with CNN-LSTM the most aligned model overall (85--87%). Despite their alignment advantage, LSTM-decoder attention maps were spatially diffuse and minimally task-differentiated; ViT-Transformer, the weakest in alignment, showed the sharpest spatial concentration and strongest task differentiation. A hemispatial-neglect simulation confirmed that ablating attention impacted LSTM decoders more than Transformer decoders. In an exploratory extension using TRIBE-simulated synthetic neural responses, fixation alignment and neural relevance dissociate: CNN-Transformer attention maps better predicted synthetic brain activity despite lower fixation alignment, with attention maps best predicting early visual cortex. Together, top-down and bottom-up components trade off what they predict in behavioral and synthetic neural data.