Breaking News
Get 4 extra free issues and unlimited free access to NewScientist.com

The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service

 

Have we begun to crack the brain's code?

  • 10:37 30 May 2008
  • NewScientist.com news service
  • Ewen Callaway
Printable versionEmail to a friendRSS FeedSyndicate
Tools
digg thisAdd My YahooAdd Google Reader reddit submitNewsvineciteulike submit

A new computer program can accurately predict how our brains respond to any noun, whether "celery", "airplane", or "kumquat".

The program guesses a word's meaning from its occurrence in a huge volume of internet text, and then builds a mental picture of the word based on the brain's reaction to other words.

"I think of it as us beginning to break the brain's code," says Marcel Just, a neuroscientist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, US, who led the study along with colleague Tom Mitchell.

Their approach was only made possible by access to a Google database of one trillion words the equivalent of 1.8 million copies of Tolstoy's War and Peace. The company released the dataset to help computer programs predict the meaning of sentences and stories.

Verb neighbours

Instead, Mitchell and Just calculated how often each concrete noun something that can be touched, smelled, seen, etc occurs next to 25 common verbs, such as "see", "hear", "move" and "taste."

The 25 verbs are fundamental enough to capture the meaning of any concrete noun, Mitchell says. "Telephones are what you do with them and you don't eat them and you do listen to and speak to them."

The team next scanned the brains of nine college students as they viewed 60 words alongside a picture of each word.

They used a functional MRI (fMRI) scanner, which measures activity of the working brain via changes in blood flow. The words belonged to 12 categories, such as animals, vegetables and vehicles.

Based on these 60 brain scans and the trillion-word library, Mitchell and Just created a computer program for each volunteer that predicts how their brain will respond to any concrete noun.

Beating the odds

"We don't want to do fMRI studies of all 50,000 words in English, then move on to other languages. We want to understand the principle by which the brain represents things," Just says.

As a first test, the computer program was challenged to predict brain scans of two out of the 60 test words, based on brain images from the other 58 a 50/50 proposition.

The program beat the odds and matched predicted brain scans to the noun 77% of the time.

Next the program had to predict the correct scan from one word out of 1000 new words. It ranked all the words in order from best match to worst, and averaged over nine people, placed the correct brain image in the top 300, far exceeding chance.

The researchers could only confirm the model's accuracy for words they had gathered brain scans for, but other nouns should be no different, Just says. "I think if you did 'kumquat' and 'balloon', it really should work."

'Love' response

John Dylan Haynes, a neuroscientist at Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin, says the approach sidesteps one challenge of brain reading:

"The brute force way is to measure the pattern of brain activity associated with each thought one wants to read out," he says. But using this linguistic shortcut, you can deduce the meaning of a word based on it relation to a known verb.

Extracting a word's meaning from its relation to verbs also offers insight into how our brain represents objects, says Sean Polyn, a neuroscientist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. "I think it says a lot about the way concepts are built up out of experience."

Brain areas involved in taste, for instance, tended to light up when subjects viewed the word "apple". Less clear is how the brain responds to abstract nouns, Mitchell says. The team is currently testing whether it can predict how the brain will respond to nouns like "love" and "democracy". Adjectives and even phrases will present even more of a challenge.

"If I said 'the fast rabbit' versus 'the hungry rabbit', you think two different meanings," says Mitchell. "I'd love to understand how adding an adjective modifies the neural representation of rabbit."

Eventually the hope is that the method will help understand the patterns in the brain, and how thoughts are constructed. Decoding how the brain works will probably lead to better artificial intelligence, says Just. "If it works well in the brain maybe it will work well in silicon."

Journal reference: Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.115876)

Comment subject
Comment
No HTML except lower case italic tags or lower case bold tags, please:
<i> or <b>
Your name
Your email
 

We need your email in case we need to contact you about the comment. We will not use it for any other purpose.

 
 
There are 6 comments on 2 pages
1  | 
2
 | Next
 | Most Recent
 | See all

Universal Translator?

By Jason Scupham

Fri May 30 13:49:47 BST 2008

So if this was taken further and refined, would we be able to analyse other languages and easily translate their words with the use of a computer

For example could (if developed) be used as a Universal translator between "Alien" and Human languages?

Just a thought, but this is very interesting. Not sure if my comments are purely into understanding the brain but more of an application for this technology.

REPORT | REPLY

Universal Translator?

By J A Roberts

Fri May 30 14:27:22 BST 2008

You wouldn't actually need this technology for the translation part. All you would need is a database containing the different languages, that can apply grammar and synatx rules to the transformation. Obviously its more complex than that, but this technology would only be usefulif we had a base language, so if we didn't know the alien language, it wouldn't help us figure it out, not to mention the aliens may have physiological differences that prevent the use of the technology on them.

As it is, programs are becoming able to read ad speak (though no thoughts of their own as of yet.)

http://www.cnl.salk.edu/ParallelNetsPronounce/net

talk.mp3

REPORT | REPLY

Have We Begun To Crack The Brain Code

By Stan Hayward

Fri May 30 15:24:15 BST 2008

Scientist Tom Mitchell says "If I said 'the fast rabbit' versus 'the hungry rabbit', you think two different meanings," says Mitchell.

Perhaps he means 'the fasting rabbit' as against 'hungry rabbit' where one is voluntary and the other not. He might include 'the dieting rabbit' to make the control group complete.

REPORT | REPLY

By The Trutherizer

Fri May 30 18:23:46 BST 2008

Very clever...

REPORT | REPLY

There are 6 comments on 2 pages
1  | 
2
 | Next
 | Most Recent
 | See all

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

Printable versionEmail to a friendRSS FeedSyndicate
Cover of latest issue of New Scientist magazine
  • For exclusive news and expert analysis every week subscribe to New Scientist Print Edition
  • For what's in New Scientist magazine this week see contents
  • Search all stories
  • Contact us about this story
  • Sign up for our free newsletter
PASSWORD LOGIN
Subscribe to New Scientist magazine