4.4 Article

Brain decoding in multiple languages: Can cross-language brain decoding work?

期刊

BRAIN AND LANGUAGE
卷 215, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bl.2021.104922

关键词

Cross-language brain decoding; Neural representation; Multivariate pattern analysis; Computational modeling; Multilingualism

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [BCS-1533625]
  2. Hong Kong Polytechnic University
  3. Guangdong Pearl River Talents Plan Innovative and Entrepreneurial Team [2016ZT06S220]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31700951]
  5. Shenzhen Basic Research Scheme [JCYJ20170412164259361]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cross-language brain decoding uses models from one language to decode stimuli of another language, providing insights into how the brain represents multiple languages. While the overall success of this approach remains to be tested, it is expected to continue progressing in the domain of language processing.
The approach of cross-language brain decoding is to use models of brain decoding from one language to decode stimuli of another language. It has the potential to provide new insights into how our brain represents multiple languages. While it is possible to decode semantic information across different languages from neuroimaging data, the approach?s overall success remains to be tested and depends on a number of factors such as crosslanguage similarity, age of acquisition/proficiency levels, and depth of language processing. We expect to see continued progress in this domain, from a traditional focus on words and concrete concepts toward the use of naturalistic experimental tasks involving higher-level language processing (e.g., discourse processing). The approach can also be applied to understand how cross-modal, cross-cultural, and other nonlinguistic factors may influence neural representations of different languages. This article provides an overview of cross-language brain decoding with suggestions for future research directions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据