Dissociable Neural Mechanisms for Human Inference Processing Predicted by Static and Contextual Language Models.

IF 3.6 Q1 LINGUISTICS Neurobiology of Language Pub Date : 2024-04-01 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1162/nol_a_00090
Takahisa Uchida, Nicolas Lair, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Peter Ford Dominey
{"title":"Dissociable Neural Mechanisms for Human Inference Processing Predicted by Static and Contextual Language Models.","authors":"Takahisa Uchida, Nicolas Lair, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Peter Ford Dominey","doi":"10.1162/nol_a_00090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Language models (LMs) continue to reveal non-trivial relations to human language performance and the underlying neurophysiology. Recent research has characterized how word embeddings from an LM can be used to generate integrated discourse representations in order to perform inference on events. The current research investigates how such event knowledge may be coded in distinct manners in different classes of LMs and how this maps onto different forms of human inference processing. To do so, we investigate inference on events using two well-documented human experimental protocols from Metusalem et al. (2012) and McKoon and Ratcliff (1986), compared with two protocols for simpler semantic processing. Interestingly, this reveals a dissociation in the relation between local semantics versus event-inference depending on the LM. In a series of experiments, we observed that for the static LMs (word2vec/GloVe), there was a clear dissociation in the relation between semantics and inference for the two inference tasks. In contrast, for the contextual LMs (BERT/RoBERTa), we observed a correlation between semantic and inference processing for both inference tasks. The experimental results suggest that inference as measured by Metusalem and McKoon rely on dissociable processes. While the static models are able to perform Metusalem inference, only the contextual models succeed in McKoon inference. Interestingly, these dissociable processes may be linked to well-characterized automatic versus strategic inference processes in the psychological literature. This allows us to make predictions about dissociable neurophysiological markers that should be found during human inference processing with these tasks.</p>","PeriodicalId":34845,"journal":{"name":"Neurobiology of Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11025649/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurobiology of Language","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00090","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Language models (LMs) continue to reveal non-trivial relations to human language performance and the underlying neurophysiology. Recent research has characterized how word embeddings from an LM can be used to generate integrated discourse representations in order to perform inference on events. The current research investigates how such event knowledge may be coded in distinct manners in different classes of LMs and how this maps onto different forms of human inference processing. To do so, we investigate inference on events using two well-documented human experimental protocols from Metusalem et al. (2012) and McKoon and Ratcliff (1986), compared with two protocols for simpler semantic processing. Interestingly, this reveals a dissociation in the relation between local semantics versus event-inference depending on the LM. In a series of experiments, we observed that for the static LMs (word2vec/GloVe), there was a clear dissociation in the relation between semantics and inference for the two inference tasks. In contrast, for the contextual LMs (BERT/RoBERTa), we observed a correlation between semantic and inference processing for both inference tasks. The experimental results suggest that inference as measured by Metusalem and McKoon rely on dissociable processes. While the static models are able to perform Metusalem inference, only the contextual models succeed in McKoon inference. Interestingly, these dissociable processes may be linked to well-characterized automatic versus strategic inference processes in the psychological literature. This allows us to make predictions about dissociable neurophysiological markers that should be found during human inference processing with these tasks.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
静态和上下文语言模型预测的人类推理过程的可分离神经机制
语言模型(LMs)继续揭示与人类语言表现和潜在神经生理学的重要关系。最近的研究描述了如何使用LM中的词嵌入来生成集成的话语表示,以便对事件进行推理。目前的研究探讨了这些事件知识如何在不同类别的LMs中以不同的方式编码,以及如何映射到不同形式的人类推理处理。为此,我们使用Metusalem et al. 2012和McKoon & Ratcliff 1986(以下简称Metusalem和McKoon)的两个记录良好的人类实验协议来研究事件推理,并与两个更简单的语义处理协议进行比较。有趣的是,这揭示了局部语义与事件推理之间关系的分离,这取决于语言模型。在一系列实验中,我们观察到,对于静态语言模型(word2vec/GloVe),两个推理任务的语义和推理之间的关系存在明显的分离。相比之下,对于上下文语言模型(BERT/RoBERTa),我们观察到两个推理任务的语义和推理处理之间存在相关性。实验结果表明,Metusalem和McKoon测量的推断依赖于可解离过程。虽然静态模型能够执行Metusalem推理,但只有上下文模型才能在McKoon推理中成功。有趣的是,这些可分离的过程可能与心理学文献中明确描述的自动推理过程和策略推理过程有关。这使我们能够预测在这些任务的人类推理处理过程中应该发现的可分离的神经生理标记。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neurobiology of Language
Neurobiology of Language Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
32
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Domain-Specific Neural Basis of Auditory Statistical Learning in 5-7-Year-Old Children. A Comparison of Denoising Approaches for Spoken Word Production Related Artefacts in Continuous Multiband fMRI Data. Neural Mechanisms of Learning and Consolidation of Morphologically Derived Words in a Novel Language: Evidence From Hebrew Speakers. Cerebellar Atrophy and Language Processing in Chronic Left-Hemisphere Stroke. Cortico-Cerebellar Monitoring of Speech Sequence Production.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1