What Shapes Brain Alignment of Large Language Models during Dialogue? Insights from Language Production and Comprehension

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.

Understanding the alignment between large language models (LLMs) and human brain activity can reveal computational principles underlying language processing. We introduce a fine-grained input attribution method to identify the specific words most important for brain-LLM alignment, and leverage it to study a contentious research question about brain-LLM alignment: the relationship between brain alignment (BA) and next-word prediction (NWP). Our findings reveal that BA and NWP rely on largely distinct word subsets: NWP exhibits recency and primacy biases with a focus on syntax, while BA prioritizes semantic and discourse-level information with a more targeted recency effect. This work advances our understanding of how LLMs relate to human language processing and highlights differences in feature reliance between BA and NWP. Beyond this study, our attribution method can be broadly applied to explore the cognitive relevance of model predictions in diverse language processing tasks.

Brain-LLM alignment is well established in English, yet the brain's language network is neuroanatomically universal across languages. Does alignment also generalize cross-linguistically, and what governs the variation? We test this using fMRI data from 112 participants across English, Chinese, and French (the Le Petit Prince corpus) and seven LLMs spanning English-dominant, Chinese-dominant, and multilingual architectures. Our central finding is that training-language dominance, not an inherent property of English, drives the alignment pattern: a Chinese-dominant model (Baichuan2-7B), architecture-matched to LLaMA-2-7B, reverses the gradient entirely, aligning best with Chinese brains and worst with English. Beyond training dominance, formal typological distance independently covaries with alignment degradation, syntax-associated brain regions (IFG) show $2.3\times$ steeper typological gradients than lexico-semantic regions (PTL), and tokenization fertility accounts for $\sim$60% of a cross-linguistic shift in optimal encoding layer. These results reveal that the apparent "English advantage" in brain-LLM alignment is an artifact of training data composition, while the remaining variation reflects genuine typological structure concentrated in syntactic processing.