We tested whether a square root of model word surprise improves response prediction beyond linear surprise, sound and word controls. Separate public studies supplied intracranial high-gamma amplitude and BOLD fMRI during story listening. One fixed GPT-2 model supplied new probabilities for both stories. Two patients and four MRI adults supplied development. A local code lock preceded tests in seven other patients and 18 other adults. Mean added gains were +0.011794 and +1.498866 percentage points of held null prediction error. Their 95% person Student limits were [-0.013599,+0.037186] and [-0.928712,+3.926444]. The shared rule failed after correction for two claims, p=0.328125. A linear gain test also failed, p=0.984047. MRI baseline prediction was weak, and one known 1% curve injection failed in development. A constructed noiseless example gave negative gain when the added coordinate was the true response. Thus the failed reader does not show that brain responses are linear. The package gives new word estimates, audited inference with memory-mapped weights, source pins, every person score, negative results, figures and repeat code. Clinical coverage, separate cohorts and stories, source processing and short MRI records limit scope. No positive neural shape generalization across modalities or common cause was established.
We tested public depth-contact data from 9 patients in OpenNeuro ds005574 version 1.0.2. All patients heard one story. We used 317 good depth contacts and selected ten per patient with a separate validation segment. The fixed ridge model used acoustic and timing controls. The response was log high-gamma amplitude from 0.2 to 0.6 seconds after each word. After supplied GPT-2 XL word surprisal was added, the mean reduction in normalized test error was -0.000194. Positive values mean improvement. The patient bootstrap interval was [-0.000678, 0.000270]. The exact sign-flip p value was 0.4648. 3 of 9 patients improved. The baseline mean test R-squared was -0.185. Poor baseline performance limits interpretation. These data do not show that the brain lacks a surprisal response. The package preserves compact depth responses, predictions, source hashes, code, and a full retrieval recipe.