I do not recall Chomsky contesting the final statement. It does not strike me as contradictory, either.
To the best of my knowledge, Chomsky argued quite the opposite: If you are going to contend that language acquisition work the same in humans and "New AI", show that "New AI" is incapable of learning "impossible languages" just like humans are incapable of learning them.
The paper is about processing of isolated syllables, it might find the same thing for dog brains, since it is also all at the level of the brainstem. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with Chomsky's work or fMRI stuff Chomsky has talked about.
To the best of my knowledge, Chomsky argued quite the opposite: If you are going to contend that language acquisition work the same in humans and "New AI", show that "New AI" is incapable of learning "impossible languages" just like humans are incapable of learning them.
The paper is not addressing that issue.