fMRI predictors based on language models of increasing complexity recover brain left lateralization

Authors: laurent  bonnasse-gahot
christophe  pallier
Venue: NeurIPS_cc_2024_Conference
Published: 2024-05-15 17:59:29

Abstract: Over the past decade, studies of naturalistic language processing where participants are scanned while listening to continuous text have flourished. Using word embeddings at first, then large language models, researchers have created encoding models to analyze the brain signals. Presenting these models with the same text as the participants allows to identify brain areas where there is a significant correlation between the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) time series and the ones predicted by the models' artificial neurons. One intriguing finding from these studies is that they have revealed highly symmetric bilateral activation patterns, somewhat at odds with the well-known left lateralization of language processing. Here, we report analyses of an fMRI dataset where we manipulate the complexity of large language models, testing 28 pretrained models from 8 different families, ranging from 124M to 14.2B parameters. First, we observe that the performance of models in predicting brain responses follows a scaling law, where the fit with brain activity increases linearly with the logarithm of the number of parameters of the model (and its performance on natural language processing tasks). Second, although this effect is present in both hemispheres, it is stronger in the left than in the right hemisphere. Specifically, the left-right difference in brain correlation follows a scaling law with the number of parameters. This finding reconciles computational analyses of brain activity using large language models with the classic observation from aphasic patients showing left hemisphere dominance for language.

Main paper: 
 introduction: 
 Since the seminal discovery that language disorders are most often associated with lesions to the brain's left hemisphere (Dax, 1865; Manning and Thomas-Antérion, 2011; Broca, 1865; Wernicke, 1874) , the existence of a left-right asymmetry in the cortical processing of language has been amply documented through different approaches, e.g., studies of split-brain patients (Gazzaniga and Sperry, 1967) , intracarotid amobarbital injections (Wada and Rasmussen, 1960) , electrocortical stimulation (Penfield and Roberts, 1959) , functional brain imaging (Binder et al., 1996; Just et al., 1996; Stromswold et al., 1996; Malik-Moraleda et al., 2022) , and behavioral measurements such as reaction times to words presented in the left or right visual fields (Hausmann et al., 2019) . All in all, even if there is clear evidence that the right hemisphere is implicated in speech and language processing (Bookheimer, 2002; Jung-Beeman, 2005; Lerner et al., 2011; Vigneau et al., 2011; Bradshaw et al., 2017) , it is estimated that left hemispheric dominance for language occurs in approximately 90% of healthy individuals (Josse and Tzourio-Mazoyer, 2004; Tzourio-Mazoyer et al., 2017) .Given this state of affairs, one can only be surprised by the symmetric patterns highlighted by studies that have relied on computational models of language to predict fMRI brain time-courses in participants listening to naturalistic texts (e.g. Huth et al., 2016; Heer et al., 2017; Toneva and Wehbe, 2019; Caucheteux et al., 2021; Schrimpf et al., 2021; Pasquiou et al., 2023) . For example, Huth et al. (2016) constructed word embeddings using a latent-semantic approach based on co-occurrence counts (Landauer and Dumais, 1997) and used them as predictors of brain activity while participants listened to stories. The maps revealed by this approach were strikingly symmetric. This finding was replicated in subsequent studies that have used predictors derived from more advanced language models based on LSTM (Jain and Huth, 2018) or Transformers (e.g. Toneva and Wehbe, 2019; Caucheteux et al., 2021; Schrimpf et al., 2021; Pasquiou et al., 2023) (but see Caucheteux and King, 2022 who reported a significant left-right asymmetry). One potential interpretation is that brain scores are essentially driven by semantic representations (Kauf et al., 2024) , supposedly represented in a very distributed fashion across both hemispheres (see e.g. the discussion in Huth et al., 2016) .In this paper, we use 28 large language models (LLMs) of increasing size (from GPT-2 with 124 million parameters to Qwen1.5-14B with 14.2 billion parameters; see Table A .1 for the full list) to fit fMRI data obtained from participants who listened to a naturalistic text (from Le Petit Prince dataset, Li et al., 2022) . We find that a clear left-right asymmetry emerges as the size and performance of these models increases, and that this is not simply due to differences in signal-to-noise ratio between left and right hemispheres. 
fmri data: 
 Le Petit Prince dataset. We use the publicly available fMRI dataset Le Petit Prince1 which provides recordings from English, French and Chinese participants who had listened to the audiobook of Le Petit Prince in their native language while being scanned using functional magnetic resonance (TR=2 s; voxel size=3.75 × 3.75 × 3.8 mm). Technical details on fMRI acquisition and preprocessing can be found in the publication accompanying the dataset (Li et al., 2022) . Here, we use fMRI data spatially normalized in the Montreal Neurological Institute space, from all 49 English speakers. All of them were right-handed according to the Edinburgh handedness questionnaire. For each participant, fMRI acquisition was divided into 9 runs lasting each for about 10 min.Additional preprocessing and creation of an average subject. To reduce the computational burden of the study, and because we are interested in making inferences about the general population, we compute a group average from all subjects. In order to further reduce the computational cost of the study, all functional data are first resampled to 4 mm isotropic voxels, close to the original acquisition resolution. Before averaging, we compute a symmetric brain mask common to all subjects using nilearn compute_multi_epi_mask function with the threshold parameter set at 50%. The resulting mask, henceforth named whole brain volume, comprises 25870 voxels (1656 cm 3 ). For all subjects and each run independently, voxels' time-series are high-pass filtered with a cut-off of 128 s, linearly detrended and standardized (zero mean and unit variance). We then compute the average subject by taking the mean of all these values per voxel and per run. Finally, we trim the first 20 s and the last 20 s of each run, as these were found to present deviation artifacts, and standardize the resulting time-series.Inter-subjects reliable voxels. In order to evaluate the signal-to-noise ratio in each voxel, independently of any language model, we estimate the reliability of each voxel across participants. To do so, we split the group of all 49 subjects into two (almost) equal subgroups (24/25), compute the average response for each group and predict the BOLD time series from each voxel of one group from the activity of all the voxels from the other group. The fitting procedure follows the same method described in more details below when fitting brain response with neural network activations, and is based on a linear mapping from one set of responses to another, evaluated on a held-out run through cross-validation, and regularized using ridge regression (L2). For each run, for each voxel, we thus compute the correlation between the true activity and the activity predicted from the other group of subjects, with a linear model trained on the other runs. This procedure is repeated 10 times, using a. different splits of the subjects. The final inter-group correlation for each voxel is the average over these 10 trials, and is plotted in Fig. 1 . The resulting map is quite consistent to the ones obtained in previous inter-subjects correlations language studies (e.g. Lerner et al., 2011) . The plots presented in the main paper are based on the subset of the 25% most reliable voxels, representing a total of 6468 voxels (414 cm 3 ) -3297 in the left hemisphere and 3171 in the right hemisphere. These voxels are in hot-colored regions delineated with the dashed lines on Regions of Interest. We selected a set of a priori regions of interest from previous works on syntactic and semantic composition: the Temporal Pole (TP), anterior Superior Temporal Sulcus (aSTS) and posterior Superior Temporal Sulcus (pSTS) from Pallier et al. (2011) , the Inferior Frontal Gyrus pars opercularis (BA44), triangularis (BA44) and orbitalis (BA47) from Zaccarella et al. (2017) , and the Angular Gyrus/Temporal Parietal Junction (AG/TPJ) from Price et al. (2015) . Each region was defined as a sphere of 10 mm radius centered on the following coordinates in the Montreal Neurological Institute's MNI152 space : TP (-48, 15, -27) , aSTS (-54, -12, -12) , pSTS (-51, -39, 3), AG/TPJ (-52, -56, 22) , BA44 (-50, 12, 16 ), BA45 (-52, 28, 10), BA47 (-44,34,-8) .Language models. We used 28 pretrained models, all available on the Hugging Face hub, ranging from 124M to 14.2B parameters. The full list along with some details on the number of parameters, layers and hidden size (number of neurons n neurons at the output of each layer) is provided in Table A .1 on page 16 in Appendix. These pretrained models come from 8 different families, namely GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019) , OPT (Zhang et al., 2022) , Llama 2 (Touvron et al., 2023) , Qwen (Bai et al., 2023) , gemma (Team et al., 2024) , Stable LM (Bellagente et al., 2024) , Mistral (Jiang et al., 2023) , and Mamba (Gu and Dao, 2023) . In this study, we only consider base models, trained with the same next-word prediction task. Most models are based on the Transformer decoder architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017) , apart from the Mamba family, which is a recent come-back of the recurrent neural network approach that is competitive with the Transformer language models. In order to extract the activation of each model in response to the text of The Little Prince, each model is fed with the full original English text. We make use of the time-aligned speech segmentation provided in the Le Petit Prince openneuro.org repository, to align the activity of the neural networks with what the subjects heard in the scanner. Each word in the text is associated with its onset in the audiobook, and the representation that we compute is the average of all the vectors of all the tokens that constitute this word, as well as the following punctuation marks if there are any. Finally, in order to mimic the BOLD response, the activity of the artificial neural network under consideration is convolved with the Glover haemodynamic response function (Glover, 1999) , as implemented in the nilearn package.Baseline models. In addition to considering all these pretrained language models, we look at a few baselines to compare with. First, we consider purely random vectors, aligned with the word onsets. Second, we consider random embeddings, similar to the previous case, but where each word is always associated with the same (random) vector. In these two cases, we look at 300 and 1024 dimensional vectors. The results presented in this paper for these random baselines were averaged over 10 models obtained from different seeds. Third, we look at non-contextual embeddings provided by the seminal GloVe embeddings, where each word is always associated with the same vector, of 300 dimensions here, after training on co-occurrences on large English text corpora (Pennington et al., 2014) .Procedure for fitting an encoding model. For each model, we separately consider the activity provided by each layer, plus the embedding layer. Hence, for a 12-layer model, we consider 13 layers. Let us notate X l,k the activity of a layer l generated by the text of run k, (after convolution with the haemodynamic response function, as described above), and Y v,k the BOLD time series of voxel v of run k. X l,k is a n scans,k × n neurons matrix, and Y v,k a vector of dimension n scans,k , where n scans,k is the number of scans of run k, and n neurons the number of dimensions of layer l (for instance, gpt2-large model has 1280 dimensions, and Mistral-7B-v0.1 has 4096 dimensions). The goal is to predict the functional brain activity Y v,k using the artificial neural activity X l,k as regressors, simply using a linear mapping between the two: Y v,k = X l,k β, where β is a vector of dimension n neurons . In order to avoid overfitting, the β coefficients are determined using ridge regression with regularization strength controlled by the parameter α. More precisely, given a run k used as test, all the remaining 8 runs are used as training set to determine the β coefficients. The hyperparameter α is chosen using nested cross-validation among a range of possible values (16 values log-spaced between 102 and 10 7 ): among the runs used for training, one is used for validation, and the remaining 7 runs for training the ridge regression with each value of α. Correlation between the actual values Y v,val and the predicted ones Y v,val is used to decide which value of α is used during training: the best α is chosen as the one yielding the greatest correlation averaged over all voxels 2 . This value is then used to compute the ridge regression on the training runs and predict the functional brain activity on the test run k. The brain correlation for a given voxel v and a given layer l is given by repeating this procedure for all 9 runs and taking the average correlation:1/n runs nruns k=1 corr(Y v,k ; Y v,k). In the end, for a given voxel, we take as brain correlation the best correlation when considering all the layers of the model.The Python 3.10 code written for the present project relies on the following libraries: transformers v4.40.1 (Wolf et al., 2020) , scikit_learn v1.4.2 (Pedregosa et al., 2011 ), nilearn v0.10.4, Pytorch v2.3.0 (Paszke et al., 2019 ), matplotlib v3.8.4 (Hunter, 2007) , seaborn v0.13.2 (Waskom, 2021 ), numpy v1.26.4 (Van Der Walt et al., 2011 ), pandas v2.2.2 (McKinney et al., 2010) , statsmodels v0.14.2 (Seabold and Perktold, 2010) . All pretrained models were downloaded from Hugging Face through the transformers interface. The code is available at https://github.com/l-bg/llms_brain_lateralization.The main English study on the average subject takes about five days of CPU time on a computer equipped with an Intel Xeon w5-3425 processor (12 cores), mainly dedicated to perform the ridge regression of all layers of all models, using the scikit-learn package.Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors? Answer: [Yes] Justification: There is a dedicated subsection in the Discussion & Conclusion section, right before the References that discusses two limitations of our work (use of a group analysis rather than individual analyses, and limitation to a single language:English) Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper. • The authors are encouraged to create a separate "Limitations" section in their paper.• The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to violations of these assumptions (e.g., independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification, asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect on how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be. • The authors should reflect on the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach was only tested on a few datasets or with a few runs. In general, empirical results often depend on implicit assumptions, which should be articulated. • The authors should reflect on the factors that influence the performance of the approach.For example, a facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution is low or images are taken in low lighting. Or a speech-to-text system might not be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails to handle technical jargon. • The authors should discuss the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size. • If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and fairness. • While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might be used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, a worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play an important role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations. 
distribution of correlations: 
 The distributions of correlations over voxels, for each model, are displayed on panel (a) of Fig. 2 for the 25% most reliable voxels, and of Fig. B .2 for the whole brain volume. The random vector baseline yields very low brain correlations centered around 0. Random embeddings (fixed random vector for each word) show positive correlations, especially in the 25% most reliable voxels mask, and it increases with the dimension of the embeddings from 300 to 1024. GloVe word embeddings perform better than these baselines. Finally, the contextual embeddings provided by the large language models yield even higher brain correlations. Focusing on the contextual large language models, Fig. 2b shows the relationship between the size of the language models and their prediction performance, that is, the average correlation across the 25% most reliable voxels. The linear correlation between the brain correlation and the logarithm of the number of parameters is r = 0.95, p = 7.3e -15. The corresponding plot for the whole volume, displayed in panel (b) of Fig. B .2, also shows a linear relationship (r = 0.95, p = 3.2e -14). This finding replicates the scaling law first described by Antonello et al. (2024) . Fig. 2c details the results by the family of models. Older models like the ones from the OPT family perform worse than more recent ones like Mistral or Qwen, although within the same family the scaling law holds well in general, as exemplified by the GPT-2, OPT or Qwen1.5 families. Interestingly, the Mamba family, which is based on a recurrent neural network architecture contrary to all the other, Transformer-based, models, has similar brain scores, although they lie at the bottom of the envelope of the results (see Fig. Brain maps of smallest vs. largest models. Fig. 3 shows the brain correlations maps associated with the two most extreme models: GPT-2 with the smallest number of parameters and Qwen1.5-14B with the largest number of parameters. Interestingly, while the map generated by GPT-2 is quite symmetric, Qwen1.5-14B fits fMRI responses better in the left hemisphere than in the right (while overall performing better than GPT-2).Voxel-wise sensitivity to model size. To investigate the strength of the relationship between model size and brain score in each voxel, we compute the slope of the linear regression line between the logarithm of the number of parameters and the correlation score. These slopes are displayed in Fig. 4 .The strongest effects of model size are detected in the left angular gyrus, the medial prefrontal cortex and the precuneus on the medial surface of the parietal lobe. Smaller effects are detected in the middle temporal and inferior frontal gyri. Brain correlation and performance on natural language tasks. The number of parameters of a model is a rough proxy of its performance on language tasks. For example, OPT-13B is found to have lower performances on various natural language processing tasks than Mistral-7B which has almost half the number of parameters. Hence, we also look at measures of models' performance beyond their raw number of parameters. First we compute the perplexity of all the models on the Wikitext-2 test set (Merity et al., 2016) . Second we look at the Hellaswag benchmark (Zellers et al., 2019) , which aims to measure the ability of a model to understand language. This measure was found to be quite challenging for language models, and the performance of models scale on this benchmark well with the training budget, either in terms of number of parameters or number of tokens seen during training (see Touvron et al., 2023) . Fig. 5 shows how brain correlation increases with better models, either as measured by lower perplexity on the Wikitext-2 test set or on the Hellaswag benchmark.Both measures exhibit strong correlation with brain fit (r = -0.91, p = 1.1e -11 for perplexity and r = 0.95, p = 4.2e -15 for Hellaswag). But this is particularly relevant when looking at the ten largest models, with number of parameters above 3 billions: whereas the correlation between brain score and number of parameters is no longer significant in this case (r = 0.30, p = 0.41), the other measures of performance display a significant correlation (r = -0.86, p = 1.5e -3 for perplexity and r = 0.83, p = 3.0e -3 for Hellaswag): see Fig. 5 .Voxel-based analysis. The maps presented on Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 hint at left-right differences. Therefore, we plot the relationships between model size and brain scores split by hemisphere in Fig. 6a . This graphic reveals that the larger the model, the stronger the left-right asymmetry. More precisely, while the smallest models have similar r-scores both in the left and right hemisphere, the largest models yield stronger r-scores in the left one. The interaction between model size and hemisphere can be assessed by the correlation between model size and the left-right difference in r-scores, displayed in Fig. 6b . This graph shows that the difference also follows a scaling law (r = 0.89, p = 1.8e -10 ). See Relationship between signal-to-noise ratio, brain scores, and growth in asymmetry. Do large models fit the left hemisphere better than the right simply because the signal-to-noise ratio, or ceiling of explainable signal, is higher in the left voxels than in the right ones? A proxy for the explainable signal is the model-free inter-subject correlation (ISC). As left dominance is universal (see e.g. Malik-Moraleda et al., 2022 ; it is even attested in sign language, Poizner et al., 1987) , we wanted to check if our result holds for other languages. We therefore applied our approach to Chinese and French data provided in Le Little Prince dataset (considering all 35 Chinese participants and all 28 French participants).We first computed inter-subjects correlations. Their distributions and the corresponding maps are displayed on Although much fewer LLMs are available than for English, some models on the Hugging Face hub were trained on Chinese or French data. We considered 10 models for Chinese, ranging from 12M to 14B parameters, and 4 models for French, ranging from 124M to 7B parameters (see panel (f)). The relationships between model size and r-scores are presented in panels (g), (h) and (i) of The analyses presented above were performed on data averaged across individuals. It is important to verify if the emergence of asymmetry holds at the individual level or is an artifact of averaging. Because of limitations in time and computational power available to us, we could only analyze five participants on a subset of models. To avoid any bias, we selected the first 5 English participants. The results, presented in Fig. B .13, show that three of them present a significant increase in asymmetry (p < 0.05) when considering the full brain (panel c), and four when considering the 10% voxels with the highest r-scores in each hemisphere (panel e). 
discussion & conclusion: 
 By manipulating the size of artificial neural language models used to fit fMRI data of naturalistic language comprehension, we observed: (1) a linear relationship between the logarithm of the number of parameters of models and their ability to predict the fMRI time-courses (Fig. 2 ) and (2) a left-right asymmetry emerging when encoding models are based on increasingly complex models (Fig. 6 ).The first observation replicates the finding of Antonello et al. (2024) who described a scaling law between model size and brain score, extending to brain data the scaling laws observed between model size and performance on various NLP tasks (Kaplan et al., 2020) . Here, we generalize their result to a different dataset that includes three languages, and using a larger variety of models and families that notably include a non-Transformer, Mamba.The scaling law breaks down when focusing on the largest models, above 3B parameters. Yet, in this range, indices assessing the performance of the model on NLP tasks are still predictive of brain score (Fig. 5 ). The relationship between neural network models performance in NLP tasks and brain scores, was also investigated by Schrimpf et al. (2021) and by Caucheteux and King (2022) . Both teams reported that brain scores generally improved as the performance in the next word prediction task increased, extending to the field of language processing results that were found in the visual domain by Schrimpf et al. (2020) or in the auditory domain by Kell et al. (2018) . Caucheteux and King (2022) found that brain scores reached a plateau, and even dropped somewhat (see their Fig. 2g ) which might be due to an overspecialization for the next word prediction task in their study (Caucheteux et al., 2023) .Our second observation is the emergence of an asymmetry with increasing model size, a finding that has not been reported in the literature3 . A quick but vague explanation is that larger models better capture language representations in the left hemisphere. It begs the question of which representations are improved in larger models relative to smaller ones. For example, is it lexical, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic or world knowledge? The present work calls for detailed comparisons of the features discovered by large vs small language models, and how and where this translates into better fMRI prediction.One can attempt to perform inverse inference, that is, try to infer which processes are involved from the brain areas highlighted by our analyses, keeping in mind the pitfalls of such an approach (Poldrack, 2011) . The cortical areas where model size has the strongest impact are the Angular gyrus, the Precuneus and the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). These regions are also those where the effects of training a (small) network are the strongest Pasquiou et al. (2022) and were fit by models trained on semantic but not on syntax by Pasquiou et al. (2023) . These regions are not specific to language, e.g. they are part of the default mode network, but are involved in the highest levels of language comprehension (Simony et al., 2016; Chang et al., 2022) . The mPFC and Precuneus are known to be sensitive to discourse coherence (Ferstl and von Cramon, 2001; Xu et al., 2005) . The Angular Gyrus is also considered part of the semantic system (Seghier et al., 2010; Binder and Desai, 2011; Price et al., 2015; Kuhnke et al., 2023) . This suggests that the main effect of increasing model size is to improve the model capabilities at the semantic and pragmatic levels. The analysis by regions of interest revealed that the asymmetry holds in most regions of the core language network, except pars opercularis (BA44) and the Temporal Pole. The left BA44 has been associated with syntax (Zaccarella and Friederici, 2016) and/or speech processing (Matchin and Hickok, 2020) . The temporal poles, both on the left and on the right, are linked to semantic processing (Pobric et al., 2010; Pylkkänen, 2019) and have been designated as an amodal semantic hub by Patterson and Lambon Ralph (2016) (but see Snowden et al., 2018) .It is remarkable that in all regions of interest, even in the right hemisphere, the largest models' fits always improve over the smallest models (see Fig. 7 ). It has been known for long that the right hemisphere has some language capacity (Bradshaw et al., 2017) , which can manifest in split brain patients or in patients with lesions in the left hemisphere (Vigneau et al., 2011) . The right hemisphere has been associated with speech processing, especially prosody, usually considered to be processed in the right temporal lobe (Wildgruber et al., 2006) , as well as with high-level aspects of language understanding involved in the comprehension of metaphors or jokes (Jung-Beeman, 2005; Bookheimer, 2002) . More work will be needed to determine which aspects of LLMs allow them to fit these regions.Our main analyses were performed on fMRI data averaged across participants because of computational power limitations. We report preliminary analyses on 5 participants showing that the emergence of asymmetry holds at the individual level (see Fig. B.13 ). Nevertheless there is an important variability between subjects in brain correlations, in the difference between left hemispheric vs. right hemispheric average brain correlations, and in the slope of the left-right difference. It would be interesting for future work to assess the reliability of these measures, and to compare them with independent assessments of individual language hemispheric dominance. Unfortunately, such measurements are not provided in the fMRI dataset that we use.An interesting question concerns the evolution of lateralization during the training process of large language models, either by training such a model from scratch or by having access to checkpoints during the training (see Antonello et al., 2024; Pasquiou et al., 2022 , for first attempts). In humans, it seems that language processing in the brain starts bilaterally and then becomes progressively lateralized over time (Szaflarski et al., 2006; Olulade et al., 2020; Ozernov-Palchik et al., 2024) , although some studies have found very early lateralization (Witelson and Pallie, 1973; Wood et al., 2004) . Our preliminary exploration with the Pythia-6.9B model (Fig. B .10) reveals that the leftright asymmetry emerges during the training process. This leaves open the questions of which representations improved by learning are responsible for this asymmetry, and whether parallels with the development of language acquisition can be drawn. 
acknowledgments: 
 We would like to sincerely thank all four anonymous reviewers, whose constructive feedback significantly contributed to the improvement of the paper. Many thanks also to Yair Lakretz, Emmanuel Chemla, and all the participants of the Linguae ML seminar at École Normale Supérieure. The second column gives the p-value of the two sample t-test between the set of slopes of all the voxels of the left vs. the right corresponding ROI, whose means and 95% confidence intervals are depicted in Fig. 7b . The third column presents the correlation between the difference in performance of the models (the r-scores) on the left hemisphere minus the right hemisphere as a function of the logarithm of the number of parameters, as described in Fig. 7c . The last column gives the p-value of the correlation. These two measures of interaction lead to the same conclusions: the interaction is not significant for BA44 and TP (marginal in the latter case), and highly significant for all the other ROIs, namely aSTS, pSTS, AG_TPJ, BA45 and BA47.  and H2 Left Hemisphere e.Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instructions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material? Answer: [Yes] Justification: The fMRI data comes from a publicly available dataset, and we indicate the exact version and URL of the dataset used in our study. Code will be released publicly on GitHub. In order to preserve anonymity, we share the code as a zip file with the submission.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code. • Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted. 
experimental setting/details: 
 Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?Answer: [Yes] Justification: cf Methods section Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper to a level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them. • The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, or as supplemental material. 
experiment statistical significance: 
 Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?Answer: [Yes] Justification: Throughout the paper, whenever relevant, figures include error bars as well as statistical information such as correlation coefficient and p-value. We provide confidence intervals, as well as the descriptions of how these were computed, notably the factors of variability that these error bars capture. Explanations can be found in the captions of the figure, in the main text or in appendix (cf Table A .2).Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests, at least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper. • The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions). • The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.) • The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors).• It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean. • It is OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors should preferably report a 2-sigma error bar than state that they have a 96% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors is not verified. • For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful not to show in tables or figures symmetric error bars that would yield results that are out of range (e.g. negative error rates). • If error bars are reported in tables or plots, The authors should explain in the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures or tables in the text. 
experiments compute resources: 
 Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the computer resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments?Answer: [Yes] Justification: cf section 2.3 Computer code in the Methods section Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU or GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage. • The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well as estimate the total compute. • The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary or failed experiments that didn't make it into the paper). 
code of ethics: 
 Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines?Answer: [Yes] Justification: We reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics and found that our work respects all the points.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.• If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require a deviation from the Code of Ethics. • The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there is a special consideration due to laws or regulations in their jurisdiction). 
broader impacts: 
 Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?Answer: [No] Justification: As we mention in the abstract, our finding reconciles results from neuroscience and machine learning, which is a positive impact for the scientific community. Yet, we cannot think of any industrial application, nor any direct risk or negative societal impact.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.• If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact. • Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations. • The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is a direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster. • The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology. • If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how a system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML). 
safeguards: 
 Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?Answer: [NA] Justification:Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.• Released models that have a high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters. • Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images. • We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make a best faith effort.12. Licenses for existing assets Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?Answer: [Yes] Justification: We use a publicly available fMRI corpus, Le Petit Prince. We indicate the exact version that we use, as well as the URL where to find it, on openneuro.org, and cite the paper accompanying the release of this dataset. As for the code and pretrained models, we clearly list all the pretrained models and packages that we use, their versions, and we cite the relevant corresponding work for each of them. See in particular the Methods section. 
 
 Appendix: 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 i. NeurIPS Paper Checklist 1. Claims Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope? Answer: [Yes] Justification: The novel contribution of this work, clearly stated in both the abstract and at the end of the introduction, is the discovery of a left-right brain asymmetry in the predictive power of NLP models when their complexity increases. This is clearly supported by the experimental results presented and discussed in the paper. Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper. • The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made in the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or NA answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers. • The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results can be expected to generalize to other settings. • It is fine to include aspirational goals as motivation as long as it is clear that these goals are not attained by the paper.38th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2024).https://openneuro.org/datasets/ds003643/versions/2.0.5We performed exploratory analyses showing that a single value for α for all the voxels in the brain was not detrimental to the predictions of the functional data, and produced a massive gain in speed.Note that the growing asymmetry with model size goes beyond showing a left-right difference in a single model, which could be explained by signal-to-noise ratio asymmetry (see, e.g.,Caucheteux and King, 2022, Fig. 2d) 


Decision: This paper presents a novel result about the asymmetry of language representations in natural speech understanding when modeled with language model of increasing complexity. This is an important question because there is a disagreement in the field: traditional analyses always focus on the left hemisphere, while experiments with natural stimuli often report bilateral representations. The authors proceed by testing models of various sizes and replicating the existence of a scaling law relating the number of model parameters and the ability to predict fMRI activity. They observe that this pattern exhibits a significant Left-Right asymmetry. The reviewers have appreciated the strength of the arguments, especially after adding the additional analysis. The recommendation is to accept this paper as long as the author incorporate the new analyses in the manuscript, along with the appropriate discussion. Is it also particularly valuable to expand on the potential theoretical reasons for this result, since while it does agree with the historical literature on language processing, it is different from what has been recently reported in studies using language models.

Reviews: review: paper_summary: paper_summary: The paper studies whether encoding fits with LLMs onto fMRI data can be used to find left lateralization, the idea that language is lateralized to the left hemisphere. This is a well-known property of language localization in many humans. They also show that increasing model size improves fit from their encoding models.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: * Although the motivation of this paper is reasonable, I think the presentation can be significantly improved. 
    * The paper should make an argument about why lateralization is an important property of brain fits with LLMs. I think this was missing.
    * A small nitpick: From my understanding, I can’t see any data from right hemisphere regions in Schrimpf et. al. (2021) [1]. The paper is very careful in acknowledging left-lateralization (see Page 2 of the Schrimpf paper). 
    * The introduction should present some more details on the setting. What language models are used? What data? This is covered later but is missing from an introduction that should introduce more of the paper. Also the introduction doesn’t even mention the other contribution of the paper on model size correlating with neural fit. 
* The novelty and takeaways of this paper are unclear to me.
    * First, the paper claims that larger language models have better fits. Schrimpf et. al. (2021) [1] already establishes that. This is acknowledged in the conclusion/discussion section. The authors also refer to Antonello et. al. 2024 which seems to establish this as well. How would the authors characterize the difference in the takeaway of their paper vs the prior takeaway? I’m not particularly satisfied with the argument that much larger models were used or that a logarithmic scaling law was identified. 
    * Caucheteux and King [2] discuss lateralization at length in their paper. Refer to page 3 where they show that language embeddings have significantly better left-lateralization over right-lateralization (R±0.01, p < 10^-14). This may not use the controls presented in this paper but still points to the same result. 
    * I think both of these need to be discussed at more length. The contribution of this paper should be better characterized. I don’t see the novelty of this work even in regards to lateralization.
* Baselines
    * The paper doesn’t consider the baseline comparison with randomly initialized models. Why? I think this is a very important baseline for characterizing architectural bias and this is done in previous work.

[1] Schrimpf et. al. The neural architecture of language: Intergrative modeling converges on predictive processing. PNAS 2021. 
[2] Caucheteux et. al. Brains and algorithms partially converge in natural language processing. Nature communications, 2022.
questions: questions: * Why did you also include Mamba? I’m not sure it adds anything or detracts anything but I’m just curious about the choice.
limitations: limitations: I believe all reasonable limitations were addressed with regards to this paper.
paper_summary: paper_summary: Recent studies on language processing in the human brain using fMRI data and language model embeddings have shown that both hemispheres are involved in language processing although many previous studies have indicated a left lateralization. The authors aim to reconcile these findings. They use embeddings from language models of different sizes to predict naturalistic fMRI data and show that as the number of parameters or performance of the models increases, the respective embeddings are more predictive of activity in the left hemisphere vs. in the right one. They also show that this pattern holds in various regions of interest.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: This is a strong submission in general. I have the following suggestions/questions to improve it:

1. The second paragraph of the introduction (and the abstract) mentions that many recent works have discovered strikingly symmetric brain maps for language processing. To the best of my knowledge, many of these studies conclude that both hemispheres are involved in language processing without assessing left-lateralization since other studies had contended the role of the right hemisphere altogether. If one looks at their figures (ex: Fig 2 from Toneva and Wehbe (2019) or Fig 3 from Cauchetaux and King (2022)), the left hemisphere is generally predicted better than the right hemisphere. Therefore, I think that this paragraph can be modified to better reflect these results.

2. I understand the need for reducing the computational burden of the study and the nuances mentioned in the limitations section. However, for a subset of the participants, it would be great to see individual participant-level results to make an even more convincing argument. This is mostly to rule out any artifacts associated with using an average subject and not to make inferences about inter-individual variability.

3. For encoding any given word, are the embeddings computed by only inputting the previous words or using the full sentence/text? In other words, are the embeddings capturing future information due to the full sentence/text being encoded at once? If they are capturing future information, that is at odds with how the data was collected since words were sequentially presented to participants.
questions: questions: I have mentioned my questions and suggestions in the Weaknesses section above.
limitations: limitations: The authors have identified the limitations of their analyses and I do not foresee any negative societal impacts.
paper_summary: paper_summary: The authors investigate whether larger-parameter language models better predict left versus right hemisphere brain responses (recorded during listening of a naturalistic story, via fMRI), motivated by left-lateralized processing of language in most individuals. They indeed find that larger models better predict left hemisphere brain responses, compared to right hemisphere responses. In addition, the authors have two separate findings that mainly replicate prior work: larger models better predict brain responses, and the prediction performance correlates with the language model's ability to perform natural language tasks.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: - The paper averages across different individual's brain responses (n=48) in the template brain space. Individual activations to language differ from participant to participant, and there is no direct voxel-to-voxel correspondence (see e.g., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32160565/). Hence, it is somewhat unclear whether the primary finding of brain-model lateralization can be explained away by methodological issues. Imagine that individuals generally have a higher voxel-to-voxel correspondence in the left hemisphere compared to the right -- would it be true that large models, given higher expressivity, would be able to better predict those left-hemisphere voxels? (see Questions for more specific questions).
questions: questions: - Pertaining to the issue of group-level averaging, is it true that the left-hemisphere generally has higher reliability? Was that controlled for in any way in the analyses (as far as I understand, the authors analyze the top 25% most reliable voxels, yielding approximately a similar number of voxels in both hemispheres (~3K). What are the average reliability values per hemisphere? If the authors subset left and right hemisphere voxels such that they are matched on reliability, are the primary model-brain lateralization findings still valid?
- Are the performance vs. brain correlations (Figure 5) equally strong in both hemispheres? Do the left hemisphere brain activations contain more information about task, relative to the right ones?
- Can the authors clarify what they mean by "The right hemisphere is usually “hidden” because it is inhibited by the left hemisphere in healthy people"? (line 285)?
limitations: limitations: The authors do discuss limitations briefly, but I am not sure I agree with the conclusions that follow. For instance, in lines 299-300 the authors mention the group-level approach, but conclude that assessing inter-individual variability would require "However, this would require a random sample of the population, not only right-handed participants". Why is that true? Inter-individual variability can still be investigated in right-handed individuals? It is true that it would be useful to assess the hemispheric dominance of individuals -- that could be done by e.g., assessing the consistency of brain responses within an individual, across runs (other approaches exist as well).
paper_summary: paper_summary: The paper studies how well 28 large language models (LLMs) predict fMRI activity of human subjects listening to an audiobook. First, they observe a scaling law; the neural predictivity of LLMs increases linearly with the logarithm of the number of model parameters, a result consistent with prior work. Second, they show larger models predict left-hemisphere activity better than right-hemisphere activity, and this left-right asymmetry increases with model size.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: From most to least significant:
1. For the paper's main contribution, i.e., asymmetry in Left-Right neural predictivity that increases with model size (Figure 6), the paper does not provide sufficient experimental/theoretical analyses into possible reasons, nor an adequate attempt into possible explanations/interpretations.
2. The growing L-R asymmetry result may suggest qualitatively interesting differences between larger vs smaller LLMs, as briefly mentioned in Lines 256-260 in the paper. However, an alternative reason could be that right-hemisphere activity is just lower in general (as shown in many prior studies), or more noisy / less consistent across subjects (especially since this paper uses a group-average of fMRI activity).
- The L-R difference does not seem qualitatively interesting, because both trends in Fig. 6a are straight lines. This seems to simply hint at left-hemisphere activity being easier to predict. If the left-hemisphere line were exponentially increasing instead, that may hint at a qualitatively interesting difference between larger vs smaller models. But instead, we see two straight lines. In fact, the L-R difference seems to already be present with models with 350M parameters, and the gap is only linearly widening as model size increases.
3. For the growing L-R asymmetry result, there is no significant effect in many key regions of the language network (IFG, temporal pole) (Figures 4 and 7) (Lines 225-227). The strongest effects seem to occur in AG, which some consider not part of the language network [1]. This is a relevant weakness since this paper focuses on the language network.
4. They compute a group average of fMRI activity across subjects before using LLMs to predict fMRI activity (Line 64), and identified regions of interest (ROIs) in the language network using anatomical locations (Line 95-98), rather than functional localization. However, these methodological choices may have issues when studying the language network (see Box 1 of [1]). Because of inter-individual variability in the precise anatomical locations and sizes/shapes of functional areas in the language network, any voxel defined in a common anatomical space often corresponds to different functional areas across individuals. Hence, using group averages and anatomical ROI localization can lead to the blurring of neighboring areas and information loss [1].

[1] E. Fedorenko, “The language network as a natural kind within the broader landscape of the human brain,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience.
questions: questions: Just a minor suggestion to fix typos:
1. Hyperlinks to appendix figures do not work correctly. E.g., "Fig. B.1" (Line 162), also: Lines 173, etc. These are the hyperlinks that start with "Fig B."
limitations: limitations: Limitations not mentioned in the paper:
1. See Weaknesses 3 and 4.

Comments: comment: Thanks for this additional piece of information. I am still puzzled as to why that is the case (perhaps due to an aspect of the evaluation pipeline?). However, I think the paper has improved substantially over rebuttals, and I am happy to raise my score to 7.
Thank you for the example. We now understand better and you are perfectly right that the normalization by the ISC can modify the ratio of slopes. We therefore recomputed Fig.6 (a and b) by replacing the brain scores by the brain scores divided by the ISC, in each voxel (and then averaged by hemisphere). The growing asymmetry still holds with these normalized values, and the left-right difference still follows a scaling law very similar to the one displayed in Fig. 6b with, now, r=0.87, p=1.7e-9 (while before normalization, r=0.89; p=1.8e-10). We will include this figure in the future appendix as suggested. Thanks again for helping us to strengthen the paper!
I will raise my score from 5 to 6. I think my query was mostly resolved by your new clarification, combined with your clarification to reviewer d74H and Fig. 2c in your rebuttal pdf. Below, I will try my best to clarify what I meant in my earlier comment.

> dividing the brain correlations by the ISC (noise ceiling) would affect the global position on the y-axis but not the ratio between the slopes.

Maybe I am the one who is misunderstanding, but I think the ratio between the LH/RH slope values is affected by the LH/RH noise ceilings.

A toy example, suppose:
- LH values: [2,4,6,8,10], if the noise ceiling is 10, after normalization division: [0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0].
- RH: [1,2,3,4,5], if the noise ceiling is 5, after normalization division: [0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0].
- The ratio between the steepness of slopes started as 2, but changed to 1, after dividing by the different noise ceilings.

Specifically, if the ratio of the un-normalized LH/RH slopes (current Fig. 6a) is equal to the ratio of the LH/RH noise ceilings, the normalized LH/RH slope values (i.e., divided by noise ceilings) will end up being equal.
- Slope ranges for LH: [0.402, 0.465], RH: [0.398, 0.448], I eyeballed the values from Fig. 6a, exact values are not important.
- Thus, the ratio of slope: (0.063 / 0.050)
- Suppose the noise ceiling values are: LH: 0.700, RH: 0.556, which has a ratio: (0.700 / 0.555...), ~equal to (0.063 / 0.050).
- Then, the noise-normalized slope ranges for LH: [0.574, 0.664], RH: [0.716, 0.806]
- Thus, the ratio of LH/RH slopes: (0.09 / 0.09) = 1, which means the LH/RH slope values become equal after ceiling normalization

Perhaps it is best to show a figure (maybe in the appendix) similar to Fig. 6a in your paper, but the y-axis is the noise-normalized brain correlation instead. The LH slope is probably still steeper than the RH slope, as you said, and this would resolve my query.
Thank you for your constructive feedback.

> In this case, if you changed the y-axis to the noise-normalized brain correlation (i.e., brain correlation divided by respective noise ceilings), the LH and RH slopes would be equal.

Maybe we misunderstand something here. If one considers the inter-subjects correlation (ISC) as a proxy for noise ceiling, then it is a constant from the data that does not depend on the model, in particular in the number of parameters. In that case, dividing the brain correlations by the ISC would affect the global position on the y-axis but not the ratio between the slopes.

> I am unsure if the L-H difference in SNR fully or only partially explains the L-H asymmetry in slopes.

In our response to reviewer d74H, we report a new analysis that goes against the idea that the growing left-right asymmetry in brain correlation is explained by an asymmetry in inter-subjects correlation. We hope that it answers your concern.
Thank you for your constructive feedback. We will include and discuss these new analyses.

>  Then why would it not be the case that the number of parameter trend holds up? Any speculations are welcome.

We understand the concern. The relationship between inter-subjects correlation (ISC) and performance of encoding models is indeed complex and subtle.

We produced a new plot that might answer your concern (which we unfortunately cannot share here, but will include in supplementary figures). This plot shows, for each (pairwise symmetric) parcel of the Harvard-Oxford atlas, the left-right difference in inter-subject correlation on the x-axis, and, on the y-axis, the slope of the left-right difference in brain score as function of model size (this corresponds to the slope of the line displayed in Fig. 6b, computed over the whole brain in this figure, but computed now for each parcel) . The verdict is that there is no relationship between the two quantities (r = -0.1; p=0.52).
Thank you for your constructive feedback.

> it would be great if the authors could include the individual level analyses in the final version

The full pipeline takes about five days. Before the deadline, we will try and pick a few subjects and maybe a subset of models to check the validity of the results at the individual level.
Thank you for your constructive feedback. We will try to better clarify our position in the camera-ready paper.

> I would strongly push for this baseline to properly characterize the role of linguistic learning 

We will include these analyses in the final version of the paper. 

Our interpretation for the fact that baselines with untrained contextual models perform less well than fixed random embeddings is the following. The linear regression to fit the encoding models to brain data may learn some association between the (random) embedding associated with a given word and the brain activation elicited by this word. Contextual models (transformers, RNN, …) would then perform less well than fixed embedding models as the context introduces noise in the activation pattern associated with a given word.
Thanks to the authors for addressing my comments, in particular, for running the analyses in Figure 2. I think the claims need to be rephrased slightly by taking those analyses into account. I still struggling to make sense of Figure 2B. Usually, larger models also perform better on the tasks (which also correlates with brain scores, as you demonstrate). Then why would it not be the case that the number of parameter trend holds up? Any speculations are welcome. Thanks again!
Thank you for the detailed response and clarification. This was very useful for me to understand the positioning of this paper. Although this may be my own personal opinion, I think it would be great to characterize this contribution through the lense of what you wrote in this response. I also really appreciate your response on why lateralization was important! My main feedback would be to provide some more framing on the connection of increased lateralization with increasingly large language models. 

In general, I also really like the randomly initialized result. This gives me confidence in conclusions drawn in the paper. I understand that prior papers may have consistently shown the same result but I would strongly push for this baseline to properly characterize the role of linguistic learning in a camera ready version of the paper.

In light of the response, I will raise my score to reflect my better understanding of the contribution.
Thank you for the response! My concerns have been addressed but it would be great if the authors could include the individual level analyses in the final version. I keep my original score.
I raised my score from 4 to 5. Thanks for the clarifications and new rebuttal pdf results. The authors provided convincing clarifications for some of the weaknesses (and their sub-points) I raised.

1. The paper does not provide sufficient experimental/theoretical analyses into possible reasons for growing L-H asymmetry, nor an adequate attempt into possible explanations/interpretations (unresolved)
2. Linearly growing L-R asymmetry may simply reflect L-R differences in SNR (partially resolved)
- In my review, I wrote that straight lines in Fig. 6a (x-axis: model size, y-axis: brain correlation) may not be interesting, even though the LH slope is steeper than the RH slope. In particular, I was thinking that this may simply reflect LH having a higher SNR / noise ceiling than RH. In this case, if you changed the y-axis to the noise-normalized brain correlation (i.e., brain correlation divided by respective noise ceilings), the LH and RH slopes would be equal. Here, the growing asymmetry simply reflects that LH activity is easier to predict, rather than an interesting difference between larger vs smaller models.
- Put another way, if you had two datasets where one had a higher noise ceiling, a "growing asymmetry" or difference in model-size-vs-brain-correlation slopes between the two datasets is not interesting if it is simply due to the difference in noise ceilings. 
- Even after looking at the new rebuttal pdf results, I am unsure if the L-H difference in SNR fully or only partially explains the L-H asymmetry in slopes. 
3. Some regions in the language network do not show a significant effect (resolved)
- Thanks for the clarification.
4. Anatomical rather than functional localization, and group-level analysis (mostly resolved)
- Thanks for the clarification.