https://news.mit.edu/2020/brain-reading-computer-code-1215
This may indicate that the sampled programmers did not program in the way it can be done for example with declarative languages, i.e., primarily as a linguistic activity where we describe what we know about the task.
I also like the description in Programming as Theory Building by Peter Naur:
https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~remzi/Naur.pdf
The feasibility of this approach may depend on the programming languages one uses.
In hindsight it's clear that you dont tell a story when you program a computer or not the way I'd describe my day or teach my kids about a phenomenon. It feels more like unrolling a tape and executing a receipe in the most simple way you can after you built a mind model of the machine. You mimic an actor maybe, rather than imagine an event ?
I've met people who view it as mathematics or philosophy or a bunch of other things; in the end, I think there is a wide range of valid mental models for how computers function and therefore how to communicate with them.
There are huge swaths of the field that deal with things like machine learning or distributed systems or computer architecture that don't really fall under that categorization.
However, a key drawback of this view is that it undersells the linguistic aspect of computer science which is manifested in the search for suitable programming languages.
I think it is justified to regard the design of programming languages as a core area of computer science, and that design space is not finite.