Abstract:Since the workings of the human neural system are still not well understood, creating models that can measure behavior at the neural level remains a challenge. This is not surprising, given that the field of the neurocognitive sciences is still relatively young.To narrow the gap, we have invited researchers to address some of the issues mentioned in our call for papers. We included seven papers in this issue:Huang and colleagues proposed a neural dipole model to simulate how different brain regions interact. Although such interactions are often explored in fMRI studies, the authors examined this in EEG data. They also collected eye movement data during reading aloud to examine the eye-voice span. Their findings indicated that the time lag between eye fixations and voice onset decreased when discourse was coherent but remained constant in the opposite case. A neural network involved in reading, spanning from the superior parietal cortex to the frontal lobe, exhibited stronger connectivity when participants read incoherent sentences. This nicely illustrates the role of coherence, cohesion, semantics and context as facilitating factors for reading.Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) represent one of the most promising applications of neurocomputational models, because brain activation is here taken to control technical devices. Their current effectiveness, however, remains quite limited. Herbert proposes a roadmap to better attune BCIs to linguistic and cultural differences. She argues that interindividual variations in perception, action, cognition, language, and emotion must be considered in BCIs, and that language training could enhance their performance. Her work aligns well with another research topic on language, culture and the brain. While Herbert's goal of refining computational architectures was grounded in linguistic theories, Blache took a different approach. He reflected on classical linguistic theories and explored how they can be reconciled with recent developments within the memory unification and control theory, as well as with the predictive coding framework. His formal approach could serve as an interpretable alternative to self-learning systems, once it is implemented as an algorithmic model. Even if such a model may not predict data as effectively as machine learning models, it may offer a framework that can be experimentally tested. We believe that the strategy used in physics, which divides labor between experimental and theoretical scientists, may also be beneficial for researchers in linguistics and the social sciences.Though algorithmic models provide more formal tools for expressing theoretical ideas, physics, as the foundational natural science, often relies on mathematical models. Neural models excel at prediction, simpler mathematical models -such as regression models-can offer better explanatory power and computational efficiency. Heitmeier and colleagues investigated the performance of such models during Dutch visual word recognition and Mandarin auditory lexical decision tasks. They also simulated the development of childdirected speech, considering how word frequency changes over time, noting that certain words might be frequent in early learning but rarely used later.There are many models available for various applications. Among the most successful are connectionist models. Chang and colleagues trained a variant of the triangle model with phonology-focused and meaning-focused instructions, as well as with an instruction balancing phonology and meaning. They found that a semantic reading instruction led to greater reliance on meaning rather than phonology. It also resulted in more phonological errors, possibly due to individually developed reading styles. Their work ties into previous behavioral and neuroimaging studies, highlighting how computational models can simulate individual differences in reading strategies, especially for beginning readers. There are still many mysteries to be unraveled on how the brain generates the human mind during language processing. After seven decades of progress in connectionist models, however, the recent Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to Hinton and Hopfield serves as a testament to the value of ongoing theoretical development, even when the path ahead appears complex and is often overlooked or misunderstood. Let's use this example as inspiration to keep moving forward and trust our intuitions, much as Hinton did for many decades even when expert system technology seemed to have won the race in AI research.

Meta predictive learning model of languages in neural circuits

Meta predictive learning model of languages in neural circuits

Brain-Like Language Processing via a Shallow Untrained Multihead Attention Network

What Are Large Language Models Mapping to in the Brain? A Case Against Over-Reliance on Brain Scores

Language Reconstruction with Brain Predictive Coding from fMRI Data

A Brain-Inspired Spiking Neural Network Model with Temporal Encoding and Learning

Editorial: Neurocomputational models of language processing

Shared computational principles for language processing in humans and deep language models

Large language models surpass human experts in predicting neuroscience results

A neural probabilistic language model

Brains and algorithms partially converge in natural language processing

Emergence of syntax and word prediction in an artificial neural circuit of the cerebellum

Evidence of a predictive coding hierarchy in the human brain listening to speech

Ensemble perspective for understanding temporal credit assignment

On the Predictive Power of Neural Language Models for Human Real-Time Comprehension Behavior

Brain-like Functional Organization within Large Language Models

Towards Predictive Communication with Brain-Computer Interfaces integrating Large Language Models

Human Cognition and Language Processing with Neural-Lexicon Hypothesis

Contextual Feature Extraction Hierarchies Converge in Large Language Models and the Brain

A Language Model with Limited Memory Capacity Captures Interference in Human Sentence Processing

Meta-prediction extends human cortical and subcortical reward learning