Pretrained language models have been shown to significantly predict brain recordings of people comprehending language. Recent work suggests that the prediction of the next word is a key mechanism that contributes to this alignment. What is not yet understood is whether prediction of the next word is necessary for this observed alignment or simply sufficient, and whether there are other shared mechanisms or information that are similarly important. In this work, we take a step towards understanding the reasons for brain alignment via two simple perturbations in popular pretrained language models. These perturbations help us design contrasts that can control for different types of information. By contrasting the brain alignment of these differently perturbed models, we show that improvements in alignment with brain recordings are due to more than improvements in next-word prediction and word-level information.

The rapid growth in natural language processing (NLP) research has led to numerous new models, outpacing our understanding of how they compare to established ones. One major reason for this difficulty is saturating benchmarks, which may not well reflect differences in model performance in the wild. In this work, we introduce a novel framework to compare two NLP models by revealing their shared invariance to interpretable input perturbations targeting a specific linguistic capability. Via experiments on models from the same and different architecture families, this framework offers insights about how changes in models (e.g., distillation, size increase) affect linguistic capabilities. Furthermore, our framework enables evaluation of invariances between commercial black-box models (e.g., InstructGPT family) and models that are better understood (e.g., GPT-2). Across experiments, we observe that large language models share many invariances encoded by models of various sizes, whereas the invariances by large models are only shared by other large models. Possessing a wide variety of invariances may be key to the recent successes of large language models, and our framework can shed light on the types of invariances retained or emerging in new models. We make the code publicly available.

Despite known differences between reading and listening in the brain, recent work has shown that text-based language models predict both text-evoked and speech-evoked brain activity to an impressive degree. This poses the question of what types of information language models truly predict in the brain. We investigate this question via a direct approach, in which we systematically remove specific low-level stimulus features (textual, speech, and visual) from language model representations to assess their impact on alignment with fMRI brain recordings during reading and listening. Comparing these findings with speech-based language models reveals starkly different effects of low-level features on brain alignment. While text-based models show reduced alignment in early sensory regions post-removal, they retain significant predictive power in late language regions. In contrast, speech-based models maintain strong alignment in early auditory regions even after feature removal but lose all predictive power in late language regions. These results suggest that speech-based models provide insights into additional information processed by early auditory regions, but caution is needed when using them to model processing in late language regions. We make our code publicly available. [https://github.com/subbareddy248/speech-llm-brain]