A Low-Rank Space Captures Linear Alignment Between LLM and Human Neural Activity During Naturalistic Language Listening
Organizations: Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as computational models of human language processing, yet it remains unclear which components of their representations drive alignment with neural activity. Here, we use ridge reduced-rank regression to identify the brain-predictive subspace of LLM representations: the representational directions that support linear prediction of neural responses. Across three naturalistic language-listening datasets spanning intracranial electrophysiology and fMRI, and six model conditions spanning autoregressive, bidirectional masked, and randomly initialized language models, we find that full linear encoding performance can be recovered using only 1-3% of the original embedding dimensionality. These low-dimensional subspaces generalize across held-out participants and, to a lesser extent, across datasets, suggesting that neural predictivity is concentrated in a compact and partially shared representational space. We next compare these brain-predictive directions with the principal axes of variation in the embeddings. Principal component analysis requires substantially more dimensions to recover neural prediction, demonstrating that the directions most useful for predicting neural activity are distinct from those capturing the most overall variance within LLM representations themselves. Finally, characterizing the learned subspaces allows us to surface interpretable features that are overrepresented in neural activity above and beyond the LLM representations. Together, these results show that LLM-brain alignment is supported by a small, structured subset of model representations and provides a framework for better understanding exactly why these representations align. Code can be found at: https://github.com/thefinnlab/low-rank-alignment
Figures & tables
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Dataset | Model | 0% | 25% | 50% | 75% | 100% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Podcast | random-gpt2 | 350 | 197 | 128 | 127 | 90 |
| glove-300 | 381 | |||||
| roberta-large | 463 | 626 | 538 | 450 | 515 | |
| gpt2 | 275 | 435 | 467 | 535 | 541 | |
| gpt2-xl-batch | 337 | 415 | 526 | 565 | 516 | |
| gpt-j-6b | 450 | 630 | 638 | 574 | 540 | |
| FEATURE | DATASET(S) | MEASUREMENT AND CALCULATION | CITATION(S) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age of Acquisition | Podcast | Mean rated age at which the word is learned. | ( Kuperman et al., 2012 ) |
| Arousal | fMRI, Podcast | Rated emotional activation associated with the word. | ( Mohammad, 2025 ) |
| Association Entropy | Podcast | Entropy of the SWOW response-strength distribution for the cue word. | ( De Deyne et al., 2019 ; Shannon, 1948 ) |
| Concreteness | Cars 2, fMRI, Podcast | Mean rating of how tangible or perceptually accessible the word’s meaning is. | ( Brysbaert et al., 2014 ) |
| Content Word | Cars 2, fMRI, Podcast | Whether the word’s universal part-of-speech category is a content-word category. | ( Nivre et al., 2020 ; Qi et al., 2020 ) |
| Dependency Depth | Cars 2, fMRI, Podcast | Number of dependency-tree edges between the word and the sentence root. | ( Nivre et al., 2020 ; Qi et al., 2020 ) |
Neural Encoding
Neural encoding studies how information is represented in biological neural activity and how models map stimuli or signals into neural codes.
See all 93 papers