Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T02:17:17.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Decoding Language from the Brain

from Part II - Models of Neural and Cognitive Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2017

Brian Murphy
Affiliation:
Centre for Data Science and Scalable Computing, Queen's University, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Leila Wehbe
Affiliation:
Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Alona Fyshe
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Victoria, Canada
Thierry Poibeau
Affiliation:
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris
Aline Villavicencio
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Get access

Summary

Abstract

In this paper we review recent computational approaches to the study of language with neuroimaging data. Recordings of brain activity have long played a central role in furthering our understanding of how human language works, with researchers usually choosing to focus tightly on one aspect of the language system. This choice is driven both by the complexity of that system, and by the noise and complexity in neuroimaging data itself. State-of-the-art computational methods can help in two respects: in teasing more information from recordings of brain activity and by allowing us to test broader and more articulated theories and detailed representations of language tasks. In this chapter, we first set the scene with a succinct review of neuroimaging techniques and what they have taught us about language processing in the brain. We then describe how recent work has used machine learning methods with brain data and computational models of language to investigate how words and phrases are processed. We finish by introducing emerging naturalistic paradigms that combine authentic language tasks (e.g., reading or listening to a story) with rich models of lexical, sentential, and suprasentential representations to enable an allround view of language processing.

Introduction

The study of language, like other cognitive sciences, requires of us to indulge in a kind of mind reading. We use a variety of methods in an attempt to access the hidden representations and processes that allow humans to converse. In formal linguistics intuitive judgments by the theorist are used as primary evidence – an approach that brings well-understood dangers of bias (Gibson and Fedorenko, 2010), but in practice can work well (Sprouse et al., 2013). Aggregating judgments over groups of informants is widely used in cognitive and computational linguistics, through both experts in controlled environments and crowdsourcing of naive annotators (Snow et al., 2008). Experimental psycholinguists have used a range of methods that do not rely on intuition, judgments, or subjective reflection, such as the speed of self-paced reading, or the order and timing of gaze events as recorded with eye-tracking technologies (Rayner, 1998).

Brain-recording technologies offer a different kind of evidence, as they are the closest we can get empirically to the object of interest: human cognition. Despite the technical challenges involved, especially the complexity of the recorded signals and the extraneous noise that they contain, brain imaging has a decades-long history in psycholinguistics.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akama, Hiroyuki, Miyake, Maki, Jung, Jaeyoung, and Murphy, Brian. 2015. Using graph components derived from an associative concept dictionary to predict fMRI neural activation patterns that represent the meaning of nouns. PloS one, 10(4), e0125725.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, Andrew J., Murphy, Brian, and Poesio, Massimo. 2014. Discriminating taxonomic categories and domains in mental simulations of concepts of varying concreteness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(3), 658–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, Andrew James, Bruni, Elia, Lopopolo, Alessandro, Poesio, Massimo, and Baroni, Marco. 2015. Reading visually embodied meaning from the brain: Visually grounded computational models decode visual-object mental imagery induced by written text. NeuroImage, 120, 309–322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bachrach, Asaf. 2008. “Imaging Neural Correlates of Syntactic Complexity in a Naturalistic Context.” PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Baron, Sean G., and Osherson, Daniel. 2011. Evidence for conceptual combination in the left anterior temporal lobe. NeuroImage, 55(4), 1847–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baroni, Marco, and Lenci, Alessandro. 2010. Distributional memory: A general framework for corpus-based semantics. Computational Linguistics, 36(4), 673–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W., and Wiemer-Hastings, Katja. 2005. Situating abstract concepts. Chap. 7, pages 129–163. in Pecher, D., and Zwaan, R. (eds), Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action inMemory Language and Thinking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bear, Mark F., Connors, Barry W., and Paradiso, Michael A. 2007. Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Bemis, D. K., and Pylkkänen, L. 2013. Basic linguistic composition recruits the left anterior temporal lobe and left angular gyrus during both listening and reading. Cerebral Cortex, 23(8), 1859–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bemis, Douglas K., and Pylkkänen, Liina. 2011. Simple composition: A magnetoencephalography investigation into the comprehension of minimal linguistic phrases. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(8), 2801–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brennan, Jonathan, and Pylkkänen, Liina. 2012. The time-course and spatial distribution of brain activity associated with sentence processing. NeuroImage, 60(2), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brennan, Jonathan, Nir, Yuval, Hasson, Uri, Malach, Rafael, Heeger, David J, and Pylkkänen, Liina. 2010. Syntactic structure building in the anterior temporal lobe during natural story listening. Brain and Language, 120(2), 163–73.Google ScholarPubMed
Buchweitz, Augusto, Shinkareva, Svetlana V, Mason, Robert A, Mitchell, Tom M, and Just, Marcel Adam. 2012. Identifying bilingual semantic neural representations across languages. Brain and Language, 120(3), 282–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bullinaria, John A., and Levy, Joseph P. 2013. Limiting factors for mapping corpusbased semantic representations to brain activity. PloS one, 8(3), e57191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlson, Thomas, Tovar, Da, Alink, Arjen, and Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus. 2013. Representational dynamics of object vision: The first 1000 ms. Journal of Vision, 13(10), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, Kai-min, Cherkassky, Vladimir L., Mitchell, Tom M., and Just, Marcel Adam. 2009. Quantitative modeling of the neural representation of adjective-noun phrases to account for fMRI activation. Pages 638–646.of: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th IJCNLP of the AFNLP.
Chang, Kai-min Kevin, Mitchell, Tom, and Just, Marcel Adam. 2011. Quantitative modeling of the neural representation of objects: how semantic feature norms can account for fMRI activation. NeuroImage, 56(2), 716–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charest, Ian, Kievit, Rogier A., Schmitz, Taylor W., Deca, Diana, and Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus. 2014. Unique semantic space in the brain of each beholder predicts perceived similarity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(40), 14565–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Alex, Devereux, Barry J., Randall, Billi, and Tyler, Lorraine K. 2015. Predicting the time course of individual objects with MEG. Cerebral Cortex, 25(10), 3602–3612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collobert, Ronan, and Weston, Jason. 2008. A unified architecture for natural language processing: Deep neural networks with multitask learning. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning, 160–167.
Connolly, A. C., Guntupalli, J. S., Gors, J., Hanke, M., Halchenko, Y. O., Wu, Y.-C., Abdi, H., and Haxby, J. V. 2012. The Representation of Biological Classes in the Human Brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(8), 2608–2618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLong, Katherine A., Urbach, Thomas P., and Kutas, Marta. 2005. Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(8), 1117–1121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desai, Rutvik H., Choi, Wonil, Lai, Vicky T., and Henderson, John M. 2016. Toward semantics in the wild: Activation to manipulable nouns in naturalistic reading. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(14), 4050–4055.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devereux, Barry, and Kelly, Colin. 2010. Using fMRI activation to conceptual stimuli to evaluate methods for extracting conceptual representations from corpora. In: Murphy, Brian, Korhonen, Anna, and Chang, Kevin Kai-Min (eds), 1st Workshop on Computational Neurolinguistics.
Devereux, Barry J., Clarke, Alex, Marouchos, Andreas, and Tyler, Lorraine K. 2013. Representational similarity analysis reveals commonalities and differences in the semantic processing of words and objects. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(48), 18906–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dronkers, N. F., Plaisant, O., Iba-Zizen, M. T., and Cabanis, E. A. 2007. Paul Broca's historic cases: High resolution MR imaging of the brains of Leborgne and Lelong. Brain, 130(5), 1432–1441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erk, Katrin. 2012. Vector space models of word meaning and phrasemeaning: A survey. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(10), 635–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairhall, Scott L., and Caramazza, Alfonso. 2013. Brain regions that represent amodal conceptual knowledge. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(25), 10552–10558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedorenko, Evelina, Nieto-Castañon, Alfonso, and Kanwisher, Nancy. 2012. Lexical and syntactic representations in the brain: An fMRI investigation with multi-voxel pattern analyses. Neuropsychologia, 50(4), 499–513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernandino, Leonardo, Binder, Jeffrey R., Desai, Rutvik H., Pendl, Suzanne L., Humphries, Colin J., Gross, William L., Conant, Lisa L., and Seidenberg, Mark S. 2016. Concept representation reflects multimodal abstraction: A framework for embodied semantics. Cerebral Cortex, 26(5), 2018–2034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. Pages 111–138.of: Korea, Linguistic Society (ed), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1983. Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frank, Stefan L., Otten, Leun J., Galli, Giulia, and Vigliocco, Gabriella. 2015. The ERP response to the amount of information conveyed by words in sentences. Brain and Language, 140, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friederici, Angela D. 2002. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friederici, Angela D. 2011. The brain basis of language processing: From structure to function. Physiological Reviews, 91(4), 1357–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fyshe, Alona. 2015. “Corpora and Cognition: The Semantic Composition of Adjectives and Nouns in the Human Brain,” PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.
Fyshe, Alona, Talukdar, Partha, Murphy, Brian, and Mitchell, Tom. 2013. Documents and Dependencies: An Exploration of Vector Space Models for Semantic Composition. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 84–93.
Fyshe, Alona, Talukdar, Partha P. P., Murphy, Brian, and Mitchell, Tom M. 2014. Interpretable semantic vectors from a joint model of brain-and text-based meaning. Pages 489–499.of: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 1.
Gibson, Edward, and Fedorenko, Evelina. 2010. The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
Hagoort, Peter. 2005. On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(9), 416–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagoort, Peter. 2008. The fractionation of spoken language understanding by measuring electrical and magnetic brain signals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 363(1493), 1055–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagoort, Peter. 2014. Nodes and networks in the neural architecture for language: Broca's region and beyond. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 28C(Jul), 136– 141.Google Scholar
Hagoort, Peter, Hald, Lea, Bastiaansen, Marcel, and Petersson, Karl Magnus. 2004. Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304(5669), 438–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hale, John T., Lutz, David E., Luh, Wen-ming, Brennan, Jonathan R., and Arbor, Ann. 2015. Modeling fMRI time courses with linguistic structure at various grain sizes. Pages 89–97.of: Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics.
Hamalainen, M., Hari, R., Ilmoniemi, R. J., Knuutila, J., and Lounasmaa, O. V. 1993. Magnetoencephalography theory, instrumentation, and applications to noninvasive studies of the working human brain. Reviews of Modern Physics, 65(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handjaras, Giacomo, Ricciardi, Emiliano, Leo, Andrea, Lenci, Alessandro, Cecchetti, Luca, Cosottini, Mirco, Marotta, Giovanna, and Pietrini, Pietro. 2016. How concepts are encoded in the human brain: A modality independent, categorybased cortical organization of semantic knowledge. NeuroImage, 135, 232–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, Peter, Kringelbach, Morten, and Salmelin, Riitta. 2010. MEG: An Introduction to Methods. Boston: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasson, Uri, and Egidi, Giovanna. 2013. What are naturalistic comprehension paradigms teaching us about language? Chap. 11, pages 228–255.of: Willems, Roel M (ed), Cognitive Neuroscience of Natural Language Use. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haxby, J. V., Gobbini, M. I., Furey, M. L., Ishai, A., Schouten, J. L., and Pietrini, P. 2001. Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventral temporal cortex. Science, 293(5539), 2425–2430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, John M., Choi, Wonil, Lowder, Matthew W., and Ferreira, Fernanda. 2016. Language structure in the brain:Afixation-related fMRI study of syntactic surprisal in reading. NeuroImage, 132, 293–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickok, Gregory, and Poeppel, David. 2004. Dorsal and ventral streams: A framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language. Cognition, 92(1-2), 67–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickok, Gregory, and Poeppel, David. 2007. The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(May), 393–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoeks, John C. J., Stowe, Laurie A., and Doedens, Gina. 2004. Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19(1), 59–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, Chun-Ting, Jacobs, Arthur M., Citron, Francesca M. M., and Conrad, Markus. 2015. The emotion potential of words and passages in reading Harry Potter - An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 142, 96–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huth, Alexander G., Nishimoto, Shinji, Vu, An T., and Gallant, Jack L. 2012. A continuous semantic space describes the representation of thousands of object and action categories across the human brain. Neuron, 76(6), 1210–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huth, Alexander G., de Heer, Wendy A., Griffiths, Thomas L., Theunissen, Frédéric E., andGallant, Jack L. 2016. Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex. Nature, 532(7600), 453–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Im, Chang Hwan, Gururajan, Arvind, Zhang, Nanyin, Chen, Wei, and He, Bin. 2007. Spatial resolution of EEG cortical source imaging revealed by localization of retinotopic organization in human primary visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 161, 142–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jelodar, Ahmad Babaeian, Alizadeh, Mehrdad, and Khadivi, Shahram. 2010. Word Net Based Features for Predicting Brain Activity associated with meanings of nouns. Pages 18–26. of: Murphy, Brian, Korhonen, Anna, and Chang, Kevin Kai-Min (eds), 1st Workshop on Computational Neurolinguistics.
Just, Marcel Adam, Cherkassky, Vladimir L., Aryal, Sandesh, and Mitchell, Tom M. 2010. A neurosemantic theory of concrete noun representation based on the underlying brain codes. PloS one, 5(1), e8622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katz, Jerrold J., and Fodor, Jerry A. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 2(39), 170–210.Google Scholar
Khaligh-Razavi, Seyed-Mahdi, and Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus. 2014. Deep supervised, but not unsupervised, models may explain IT cortical representation. PLoS Computational Biology, 10(11), e1003915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidmose, Preben, Looney, David, Ungstrup, Michael, Rank, Mike Lind, and Mandic, Danilo P. 2013. A study of evoked potentials from ear-EEG. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 60(10), 2824–2830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koyamada, Sotetsu, Shikauchi, Yumi, Nakae, Ken, and Ishii, Shin. 2014. Construction of Subject-independent Brain Decoders for Human fMRI with Deep Learning. Pages 60–68.of: The International Conference on Data Mining, Internet Computing, and Big Data (BigData2014).
Kuperberg, Gina R. 2007. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146(May), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, M., and Hillyard, S. SA. 1980. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, Marta, and Federmeier, Kara D. 2011. Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual review of psychology, 62(jan), 621–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landauer, T., and Dumais, S. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Yulia, Honey, Christopher J., Silbert, Lauren J., and Hasson, Uri. 2011. Topographic mapping of a hierarchy of temporal receptive windows using a narrated story. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(8), 2906–2915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lund, K., Burgess, C., and Atchley, R. 1995. Semantic and associative priming in high dimensional semantic space. Pages 660–665.of: Proceedings of the 17th Cognitive Science Society Meeting.
Mahon, Bradford Z., Anzellotti, Stefano, Schwarzbach, Jens, Zampini, Massimiliano, and Caramazza, Alfonso. 2009. Category-specific organization in the human brain does not require visual experience. Neuron, 63(3), 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William, and Tyler, Lorraine Komisarjevsky. 1980. The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8(1), 1–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marslen-Wilson, William, Tyler, Lorraine Komisarjevsky, and Moss, Helen E. 2001. Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 244–252.Google Scholar
Martin, Alex. 2007. The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Alex, Wiggs, Cheri L, Ungerleider, Leslie G, and Haxby, James V. 1996. Neural correlates of category-specific knowledge. Nature, 379(Feb), 649–652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, R. A., and Just, M. A. 2006. Neuroimaging contributions to the understanding of discourse processes. Pages 765–799 of: Traxler, M., and Gernsbacher, M. A. (eds), Handbook of Neuropsychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
McCandliss, Bruce D., Cohen, Laurent, and Dehaene, Stanislas. 2003. The visual word form area: Expertise for reading in the fusiform gyrus. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 293–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mikolov, Tomas. 2012. “Statistical Language Models Based on Neural Networks. PhD thesis, Czech Republic: Brno University of Technology”.
Miller, George A., Beckwith, Richard, Fellbaum, Christiane, Gross, Derek, and Miller, Katherine. 1990. Introduction to WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3(4), 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Jeff, and Lapata, Mirella. 2010. Composition in distributional models of semantics. Cognitive Science, 34(8), 1388–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, Tom M., Shinkareva, Svetlana V., Carlson, Andrew, Chang, Kai-Min, Malave, Vicente L., Mason, Robert A., and Just, Marcel Adam. 2008. Predicting human brain activity associated with the meanings of nouns. Science, 320(5880), 1191–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, Brian, Baroni, Marco, and Poesio, Massimo. 2009. EEG responds to conceptual stimuli and corpus semantics. Pages 619–627 of: Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
Murphy, Brian, Poesio, Massimo, Bovolo, Francesca, Bruzzone, Lorenzo, Dalponte, Michele, and Lakany, Heba. 2011. EEG decoding of semantic category reveals distributed representations for single concepts. Brain and Language, 117(1), 12–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, B., Talukdar, P., and Mitchell, T. 2012a. Learning Effective and Interpretable Semantic Models using Non-Negative Sparse Embedding. In: International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2012), Mumbai, India.Google Scholar
Murphy, Brian, Talukdar, Partha, and Mitchell, Tom. 2012b. Selecting Corpus-Semantic Models for Neurolinguistic Decoding. Pages 114–123 of: First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM).
Nivre, J., Hall, J., Nilsson, J., Chanev, A., Eryigit, G., Kubler, S., Marinov, S., and Marsi, E. 2007. MaltParser: A language-independent system for data-driven dependency parsing. Natural Language Engineering, 13(2), 95.Google Scholar
Özyürek, Asli, Willems, Roel M., Kita, Sotaro, and Hagoort, Peter. 2007. On-line integration of semantic information from speech and gesture: Insights from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(4), 605–616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palatucci, Mark M. 2011. “Thought Recognition: Predicting and Decoding Brain Activity Using the Zero-Shot Learning Model.” PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.
Pereira, Francisco, Botvinick, Matthew, and Detre, Greg. 2010. Learning semantic features for fMRI data from definitional text. In: Murphy, Brian, Korhonen, Anna, and Chang, Kevin Kai-Min (eds), 1st Workshop on Computational Neurolinguistics.
Pereira, Francisco, Detre, Greg, and Botvinick, Matthew. 2011. Generating text from functional brain images. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5(August), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 2005. Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 576–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, Keith. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmelin, Riitta. 2007. Clinical neurophysiology of language: The MEG approach. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(2), 237–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shinkareva, Svetlana V., Malave, Vicente L., Mason, Robert A., Mitchell, Tom M., and Just, Marcel Adam. 2011. Commonality of neural representations of words and pictures. NeuroImage, 54(3), 2418–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simanova, Irina, van Gerven, Marcel, Oostenveld, Robert, and Hagoort, Peter. 2010. Identifying object categories from event-related EEG: Toward decoding of conceptual representations. PloS one, 5(12), e14465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simanova, Irina, Hagoort, Peter, Oostenveld, Robert, and van Gerven, Marcel A. J. 2014. Modality-independent decoding of semantic information from the human brain. Cerebral Cortex, 24(2), 426–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snow, R., O'Connor, B., Jurafsky, D., and Ng, A. Y. 2008. Cheap and fast – but is it good?: Evaluating non-expert annotations for natural language tasks. Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 254–263.
Speer, N. K., Reynolds, J. R., Swallow, K. M., and Zacks, J. M. 2009. Reading stories activates neural representations of visual and motor experiences. Psychological Science, 20(8), 989–999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sprouse, J., Schütze, C. T., and Almeida, D. 2013. A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001-2010. Lingua, 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sudre, Gustavo, Pomerleau, Dean, Palatucci, Mark, Wehbe, Leila, Fyshe, Alona, Salmelin, Riitta, and Mitchell, Tom. 2012. Tracking neural coding of perceptual and semantic features of concrete nouns. NeuroImage, 62(1), 463–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Schijndel, M., Murphy, B., and Schuler, William. 2015. Evidence of syntactic working memory usage in MEG data. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics.
Wehbe, Leila, Vaswani, Ashish, Knight, Kevin, and Mitchell, Tom. 2014a. Aligning context-based statistical models of language with brain activity during reading. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
Wehbe, Leila, Murphy, Brian, Talukdar, Partha, Fyshe, Alona, Ramdas, Aaditya, and Mitchell, Tom. 2014b. Simultaneously uncovering the patterns of brain regions involved in different story reading subprocesses. PloS one, 9(11), e112575.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willems, Roel M. (ed). 2015. Cognitive Neuroscience of Natural Language Use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Yarkoni, Tal, Poldrack, Russell A., Van Essen, David C., and Wager, Tor D. 2010. Cognitive neuroscience 2.0: Building a cumulative science of human brain function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(11), 489–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zheng, Wei-Long, Zhu, Jia-Yi, Peng, Yong, and Lu, Bao-Liang. 2014. EEG-based emotion classification using deep belief networks. Pages 1–6.of: IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo.
Zinszer, Benjamin D., Anderson, Andrew J., Kang, Olivia, and Wheatley, Thalia. 2015. How speakers of different languages share the same concept. Pages 2829–2834.of: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Decoding Language from the Brain
    • By Brian Murphy, Centre for Data Science and Scalable Computing, Queen's University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, Leila Wehbe, Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California, Berkeley, USA, Alona Fyshe, Department of Computer Science, University of Victoria, Canada
  • Edited by Thierry Poibeau, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris, Aline Villavicencio, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
  • Book: Language, Cognition, and Computational Models
  • Online publication: 30 November 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316676974.003
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Decoding Language from the Brain
    • By Brian Murphy, Centre for Data Science and Scalable Computing, Queen's University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, Leila Wehbe, Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California, Berkeley, USA, Alona Fyshe, Department of Computer Science, University of Victoria, Canada
  • Edited by Thierry Poibeau, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris, Aline Villavicencio, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
  • Book: Language, Cognition, and Computational Models
  • Online publication: 30 November 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316676974.003
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Decoding Language from the Brain
    • By Brian Murphy, Centre for Data Science and Scalable Computing, Queen's University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, Leila Wehbe, Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California, Berkeley, USA, Alona Fyshe, Department of Computer Science, University of Victoria, Canada
  • Edited by Thierry Poibeau, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris, Aline Villavicencio, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
  • Book: Language, Cognition, and Computational Models
  • Online publication: 30 November 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316676974.003
Available formats
×