Papers for

neurotechnology engineers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Brain alignment of language models differs during speaking and listening

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

Abstract: Brain alignment of large language models (LLMs) offers a way to investigate representational similarities between LLMs and the human brain during language processing. While previous studies have mainly focused on passive language comprehension, little is known about such alignment during dialogue, in which speakers engage in both language production and comprehension. In this study, using fMRI data collected during dialogue, we examine brain alignment during language production and comprehension across LLM layers and brain regions. We assess its association with the intrinsic dimension (ID) of LLM representations and the contributions of several interpretable linguistic and communicative features. Our results reveal distinct patterns of brain alignment between production and comprehension, as well as strong associations with ID in brain regions associated with each processing mode. Furthermore, we show that the contributions of linguistic and communicative features also vary across processing modes, LLM layers, and brain regions.

Fri 16 OctComputation and LanguageMachine Learning
The gist
Understanding how large language models relate to the human brain can help improve AI communication. This study looked at brain activity when people both speak and listen during conversations. The researchers found that the way language models match brain activity changes depending on whether a person is producing or comprehending language. Different brain areas and language model layers show unique patterns linked to these two processes. They also discovered that certain linguistic and communication features affect this alignment differently in speaking versus listening.
Open → 2610.22961v1

Neural models and brain areas bind phonemes to word positions differently

Binding Phoneme Identity to Position in Neural Models and the Human Brain

Abstract: A fundamental challenge in cognitive science and neural computation is the binding problem. Compositional generalization can be achieved by factorizing representations into roles, the structural slots of a representation (e.g., serial position or syntactic function), and fillers, the contents occupying them (e.g., a phoneme or a word), which can be recombined freely to represent novel combinations. How neural systems implement role--filler binding, however, remains unknown. One of its simplest cases is phoneme sequencing, where phoneme identity (filler) must be bound to position (role) so that /gum/ and /mug/ are represented differently. A proposal from NLP, the `onion hypothesis' (Csordas et al., 2024), holds that the direction of the neural population state encodes token identity, while its magnitude encodes position. It was formulated for random token sequences; we extend it to natural language and test it in neural models and the human brain. We first evaluated it in an encoder-decoder trained to repeat English words, using representational geometry analyses and causal interventions. Magnitude alone proves incomplete: position is encoded by magnitude together with a systematic rotation of the state direction, a scheme we formalize as the `spiral hypothesis'. We then analyzed intracranial recordings from the auditory cortex of 20 participants listening to short sentences. Across superior temporal gyrus electrodes, the change in population response between consecutive phonemes decreases in magnitude as position advances, and its direction is aligned within consonants and within vowels but near orthogonal across the two classes, supporting the magnitude coding shared by both accounts. These results provide a geometric account of how neural systems bind phoneme identity to position, and show how neural-model hypotheses can yield testable predictions about human neural computation.

Sun 11 OctComputation and Language
The gist
Understanding how the brain and computers keep track of the order of sounds in words is tricky. The authors looked at how neural networks and human brains connect phonemes (basic sounds) to their positions in words. They found that not just the strength but also the direction of brain signals changes with position, forming a spiral pattern. This insight helps explain how different sequences like /gum/ and /mug/ are recognized as different words.
Open → 2610.15843v1

Molecular neural interfaces clarify brain chemical signals amid interference

Reading While Writing: Baseline Information Requirements for Molecular Neural Interfaces

Abstract: Molecular neural interfaces that deliver and sense the same neurotransmitter must estimate endogenous release in the presence of their own chemical input. We study two exchanging regions with shared saturable uptake and concentration change measurements. Known delivery and exchange permit identification of apparent uptake at the driven region, but an unknown resting concentration difference leaves the source region's incremental uptake uncertain. We characterize all admissible source histories consistent with both ideal records and show how delivery and baseline information affect release classification. A dopamine-inspired example produces identical ideal concentration-change records for mean release-rate changes of -8.99 and +1.31 nanomolar per second. Stronger delivery changes whether all compatible sources imply suppression, with the true source held fixed. Under a Gaussian observation model, we bound discrimination based on chemical fluctuations. A baseline reference with an assumed standard deviation of 3.3 nanomolar reduces root-mean-square error from 10.41 to 1.21 nanomolar per second compared with an incorrect fixed baseline under exact gain calibration. Classification errors remain substantial with weak excitation, gain errors or responses near the category boundaries.

Wed 30 SeptEmerging TechnologiesInformation Theory
The gist
Measuring natural brain chemicals is tricky when instruments also release those chemicals themselves. The authors studied how two connected brain regions exchange chemicals and how to tell the natural release apart from the instrument’s input. They showed that some measurements can be ambiguous without knowing certain baseline levels. Their work helps understand when chemical signal readings can reliably show increases or decreases in brain activity despite the interface's own chemical effects.
Open → 2610.00763v1

Future video generation matches human brain activity better than observed video

Future Video Generation Better Aligns with the Human Visual Cortex than Observed Video

Abstract: Studying the alignment between the internal representations of vision models and the responses of the visual cortex to the same observed visual stimuli has enabled us to better understand human visual processing. However, studies so far have largely overlooked the fact that the human brain not only processes observed visual stimuli, but also predicts upcoming stimuli based on what has been observed. Accordingly, we hypothesize that internal representations for generating future video frames are better aligned with the predictive nature of human visual processing than representations of the observed video itself. To this end, we compare the alignment between human video-watching fMRI responses in the visual cortex and the internal representations from two types of video diffusion models, an autoregressive (AR) model and its non-AR base model. We first conduct a within-model analysis of the AR video diffusion model and show that the representations for future video generation align better with the visual cortex than the representations of the observed video. We then compare the internal representations of the AR model with those of its non-AR base model and again show that the representations for future video generation align better with the visual cortex than the representations for observed video reconstruction by the base model. Specifically, the alignment of observed video reconstruction is concentrated in lower-order visual cortex, whereas that of future video generation is concentrated in higher-order visual cortex. Finally, we show in a human behavioral experiment that humans prefer videos generated by amplifying the contributions of individual layers that align better with the visual cortex.

Wed 30 SeptComputer Vision and Pattern RecognitionArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Our brains not only see videos but also predict what happens next. The authors found that video-generating AI models create internal views that line up better with brain activity than simply watching videos. This means the brain’s visual system may be more about anticipating future images than just processing what is seen. They also showed people liked videos made by parts of the AI that matched brain patterns more closely.
Open → 2609.38819v1

Brain aligned attention heads differ from model critical heads

Which Attention Heads are like the Human Head? Not the Ones that Compute

Abstract: Brain-AI alignment is often interpreted as a sign that model and brain perform similar computations. Whether the aligned units are causally involved in model computation is rarely checked. On an abstract pattern-completion task (AAABAAA $\rightarrow$ B), we compare LLM attention-head representations with human EEG and test how ablating those heads affects task performance. Alignment and causation dissociate: brain-aligned heads contribute to performance, but their removal is substantially less disruptive than removal of heads selected via attribution patching. We compare two head sets that prior interpretability work defines without reference to the brain: concept vectors (CVs), which represent abstract patterns across formats, and function vectors (FVs), selected for their contribution to correct-answer prediction. Brain alignment shows little association with FV scores, while its association with CV scores varies across models. Among brain-aligned heads, we find recurring attention profiles: one emphasizes distinctive elements (novelty heads), the other repeating elements (repetition heads). The novelty family tracks salience and attends to the same elements that humans look at, yet its removal is less damaging than random ablation on average. Repetition heads contribute modestly to performance and are associated with abstract-pattern representation (CVs). Across 17 models spanning 3B-72B parameters, FV-ranked removal is substantially more disruptive than brain-ranked removal. Brain alignment thus captures how the model reads the stimulus, and only faintly captures how it represents the pattern and solves the task.

Tue 29 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
The authors studied how certain parts of language models, called attention heads, relate to human brain activity during a simple pattern task. They found that attention heads that look like human brain responses don't always do the main work the model uses to solve the task. Removing those brain-aligned heads harms performance less than removing other important heads identified by analyzing the model's decision process. This suggests that similarity to human brain activity shows how the model reads inputs, but not exactly how it thinks or computes answers.
Open → 2609.37991v1

Language models trained for specific tasks align better with brain regions

Cognitive Expert Language Models Better Align with the Corresponding Brain Systems

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can predict human brain activity across a variety of brain regions during natural language comprehension. Typically, however, LLM-brain alignment is measured using one model for different regions of the brain, and then model performance is summarized across regions. This one-model-fits-all approach ignores the functional specialization of brain regions. In this study, we assess whether a model oriented toward a particular cognitive domain aligns better with the brain system dedicated to that domain. Through prompting and fine-tuning, we first build expert LLM variants for six domains: sensory, spatial, numerical, reasoning, social, and abstract processing. We then examine whether each expert best predicts activity in the brain region associated with the corresponding cognitive domain. Consistent with our hypotheses, each expert's representations align more closely with the brain system most associated with the matching domain than do other experts. This holds under both prompting and fine-tuning, across three base models and three fMRI datasets. In a series of control analyses, we show that this model-brain alignment is specific to cognitive domain interventions; non-cognitive and surface-level interventions do not result in comparable alignment. Specializing models shifts regional alignment while leaving aggregate prediction accuracy largely unchanged, suggesting that summarizing alignment across regions may obscure regional differences in performance for specific models.

Mon 28 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
Some parts of our brain are good at certain kinds of thinking, like understanding space or numbers. Usually, language models try to predict brain activity using one general approach for all brain areas. The paper shows that if you train language models to specialize in specific thinking types, they better match the activity in the brain parts that do those tasks. This was true even when tested with different models and brain data sets. It means that using specialized models gives a clearer view of how models relate to brain functions.
Open → 2609.36239v1

Cross brain scans improve speech decoding across different people

Subject-Invariant Cross-Modal Decoding of Perceived Speech from Brain Recordings

Abstract: Perceived speech decoding based on non-invasive brain-computer interface (BCI) signals has been extensively studied in recent years. Research in this field primarily faces two challenges: extracting neural representations with rich spatiotemporal information and achieving cross-subject generalization. Although separate studies have proposed methods to cope with these issues, a unified approach that simultaneously tackles both challenges remains lacking. To fill this gap, we propose the Subject-Invariant Cross-Modal Perceived Speech Decoding (SICMD) method, which integrates functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG). We conduct comprehensive analyses of the fusion method, fusion position, encoder architecture, and model inputs. Our results demonstrate that the proposed method improves Top-1, Top-10, and Rankacc by more than 10.6%, 10.1%, and 1.7%, respectively, compared to baseline methods in cross-subject perceived speech decoding tasks, while reducing training costs by 88.8% and 60.5% compared to multi-subject and intra-subject decoding settings. Further visualization experiments also confirm the effectiveness of our approach.

Fri 25 SeptSoundArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Decoding what speech a person hears from brain signals is hard because brain activity is complex and varies between people. The authors combine two types of brain scans, fMRI and MEG, to better understand brain signals related to hearing speech and create models that work well across many people. Their method not only improves accuracy in identifying perceived speech but also requires less training time. They also visualized the brain regions involved to confirm their approach works effectively.
Open → 2609.30832v1

Compressed EEG decoders keep accuracy but not adversarial defense

AERIAL: Adversarial Evaluation of Robustness in Accuracy-Preserving Low-Precision EEG Decoders

Abstract: Deployment-oriented compression is attractive for resource-constrained brain--computer interfaces (BCIs), but whether it changes adversarial vulnerability remains unclear. On BCI Competition IV-2a, we compare 32-bit floating-point (FP32) EEGNet and ShallowConvNet models with global magnitude pruning and simulated INT8 post training quantization (PTQ) and quantization-aware training (QAT) across nine subjects and three seeds. Simulation provides differentiable quantize--dequantize models for white-box attacks and gradient analysis, while native TensorRT deployment is used for validation. Accuracy-preserving compression does not improve direct robustness: at $ε=0.005$, EEGNet PGD accuracy remains 22--24\% across FP32, 50\% pruning (P50), PTQ, and QAT. However, P50 reduces bidirectional transfer efficiency to 0.963/0.928 (FP32$\rightarrow$P50/P50$\rightarrow$FP32), versus 0.994/0.997 for PTQ; the same trend holds for ShallowConvNet. Gradient alignment shows a corresponding separation, while native PTQ agrees with simulated clean/adversarial predictions in 95--98\% of cases. These results show that direct robustness, adversarial transfer, and deployment efficiency are distinct properties of compressed EEG decoders.

Thu 24 SeptComputer Vision and Pattern RecognitionCryptography and SecurityMachine Learning
The gist
EEG brain signal decoders can be compressed to save space without losing accuracy. The authors studied if compressing these decoders also makes them more resistant to deliberate attacks that try to confuse them. They found that while accuracy stays about the same, the compressed models do not become more robust to these attacks. Also, converting models between formats affects how well adversarial attacks transfer between them, showing different aspects of performance in these decoders.
Open → 2609.30037v1

Brain signals decoded to restore speech and study language

Brain-to-Language Decoding: Tasks, Signals, Methods, Evaluation, Practical Use and Beyond

Abstract: Brain-to-language decoding translates neural activity associated with language production, internal speech and perception into linguistic or expressive outputs. It offers a route to restoring communication after speech loss and a means of studying how the brain represents language. Advances in neural recording and representation learning have expanded the field from constrained recognition and acoustic reconstruction to text generation, streaming personalised speech and facial animation. This survey synthesises these developments across invasive and non-invasive measurements, drawing on a search without a lower year limit and source-led updates through September 2026. We connect Articulated, Inner and Perceived tasks to the neural populations they engage, the representations available to decoders and the outputs those representations can support. We examine model development, public resources and the evolution of evaluation, and compare published performance and communication costs within their reported protocols. The synthesis identifies complementary routes to progress: phonetic, acoustic and semantic targets preserve different aspects of a message; shared representations support reuse across recording conditions and tasks; and online communication increasingly depends on calibration, feedback and user control alongside decoding accuracy. Shared benchmarks enable algorithmic comparisons, while longitudinal studies reveal the demands of sustained use. We discuss these developments and their remaining limitations, then outline a prospective five-level trajectory from commands and language to meaning, scenarios and bidirectional cognitive exchange

Wed 23 SeptComputation and LanguageHuman-Computer InteractionNeural and Evolutionary Computing
The gist
People who lose the ability to speak could communicate again by directly translating brain activity into words or speech. The authors review progress in reading brain signals from inside and outside the skull to understand and recreate spoken language. They explain how these signals connect to what people say out loud, think silently, or hear, and how different models turn those signals into text, speech, or animated faces. The paper also covers how these systems are tested, how well they perform, and future steps toward richer communication between brains and machines.
Open → 2609.27650v1

Human brain networks improve multimodal AI model performance across tasks

The Platonic brain bridge hypothesis: human brain networks as an architectural prior for omni models

Abstract: We propose the Platonic brain bridge hypothesis: omni models, which process video, audio and text jointly like the brain, converge on brain-like representations, and the correspondence is bidirectional. From model to brain, brain-likeness of seven omni models is stable across participants, and our encoding models on their internal hidden states rank first on the Algonauts 2025 out-of-distribution leaderboard. From brain to model, three contributions follow. Brain-MoE gives seven cortical networks one brain-pretrained expert each and raises held-out accuracy in all 15 model-benchmark pairs by 6.42 percentage points on average. Brain-AVQA builds questions from video clips labelled by the most responsive brain network; the real network-to-expert map exceeds shuffled maps in-domain on all three models. Brain-Scope uses sparse autoencoders to localize the correspondence to a small subset whose removal weakens brain prediction in all three bases tested. Human brain networks are therefore a usable architectural prior for omni models.

Thu 10 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
The paper explores how artificial intelligence models that process video, audio, and text together can develop internal structures similar to the human brain. The authors show that these 'omni models' tend to have brain-like patterns, and these similarities work in both directions: the models reflect brain activity, and brain structures can help improve the models. By assigning parts of AI models to mimic specific brain networks, performance improves significantly on various tasks. This suggests that understanding how the brain organizes information can guide building better AI systems that handle multiple types of data.
Open → 2609.10947v1