Cited by 71EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesMotor Control and AdaptationNeural dynamics and brain function

A cryptography-based approach for movement decoding

Open access
Dyer, Eva L., Gheshlaghi Azar, Mohammad, Perich, Matthew G., Fernandes, Hugo L., Naufel, Stephanie, Miller, Lee E., Körding, Konrad P.·2017·Nature Biomedical Engineering

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Brain decoders use neural recordings to infer the activity or intent of a user. To train a decoder, one generally needs to infer the measured variables of interest (covariates) from simultaneously measured neural activity. However, there are cases for which obtaining supervised data is difficult or impossible. Here, we describe an approach for movement decoding that does not require access to simultaneously measured neural activity and motor outputs. We use the statistics of movement-much like cryptographers use the statistics of language-to find a mapping between neural activity and motor variables, and then align the distribution of decoder outputs with the typical distribution of motor outputs by minimizing their Kullback-Leibler divergence. By using datasets collected from the motor cortex of three non-human primates performing either a reaching task or an isometric force-production task, we show that the performance of such a distribution-alignment decoding algorithm is comparable to the performance of supervised approaches. Distribution-alignment decoding promises to broaden the set of potential applications of brain decoding.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41551-017-0169-7

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These results indicate that substantial gains in performance are probably still possible with further language model improvements and more robust decoding algorithms that generalize better to non-stationary data.

    “These results indicate that substantial gains in performance are probably still possible with further language model improvements and more robust decoding algorithms that generalize better to non-stationary data (for example, unsupervised methods that track non-stationarities without the requirement for new training data24–27).”

    From A high-performance speech neuroprosthesis (2023) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Results describe DAD as an unsupervised decoder that worked across recording days without changing model parameters, supporting its use without new paired training data. But the paper does not show the method tracking non-stationarities; the Discussion treats accounting for drift in neural properties as a potential improvement not included in DAD. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Unsupervised algorithms for updating decoders to neural changes should be feasible.

    “Furthermore, we found that neural activity changed at a gradual rate over time, suggesting that unsupervised algorithms for updating decoders to neural changes should be feasible24–27 (Fig. 4d).”

    From A high-performance speech neuroprosthesis (2023) · cites this paper as [24]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [10]Bose R Information theory, coding and cryptography McGraw-Hill Education 2008
  2. [38]Bishop Christopher M Bayesian pca Advances in neural information processing systems 382 388 1999

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dyer, E. L., Gheshlaghi Azar, M., Perich, M. G., Fernandes, H. L., Naufel, S., Miller, L. E., & Körding, K. P.
Affiliations
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Dyer, Eva L.
Venue
Nature Biomedical Engineering
Published
2017-12-12
Volume
1
Issue
12
Pages
967-976
ISSN
2157-846X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2952375713
Cited by
70
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Biomedical Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH103910, U01MH109100)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS074044, R01NS053603)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
brain decoding, movement decoding, distribution alignment, Kullback-Leibler divergence, motor cortex, neuronal activity, reaching task, isometric force production, non-human primates
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Animals, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Macaca mulatta, Models, Neurological, Motor Cortex, Movement, Neurons, Brain-Computer Interfaces

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review