The DOI matches its Crossref record; 212 of the 212 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 187 of the 252 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The speech neuroprosthesis
Open accessAbstract
Review of advancements in speech neuroprostheses decoding speech production directly from motor-planning and vocal-tract articulatory cortical representations, highlighting high-resolution neural interfaces and deep learning speech computational algorithms.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
55 Partly supported · 35 Own interpretation · 26 Supported · 17 No full text of the sources · 13 Sources not found · 4 No basis given · 3 Supported so far · 3 Couldn’t confirm · 3 Not checked yet · 1 Mixed support · 1 Not supported · accuracy not yet measured
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Another approach, pursued by Angrick et al.111 and Anumanchipalli et al.110, involved a two-stage decoding process. In the first stage, a deep-learning model is trained to regress neural activity (recorded from SEEG111 or ECoG110) to a time series of acoustic features, such as the mel-spectrogram (Fig. 3b). In the second stage, a speech synthesizer — a vocoder — is used to convert the acoustic rep”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [111] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Decoding Approach section describes the claimed two-stage process: a DenseNet maps neural activity to mel-scaled spectrograms, and a WaveNet vocoder produces audio. However, the citing sentence assigns SEEG to Angrick et al.; the Experiment and Data Recording section says they recorded ECoG using a cortical electrode grid. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Disputedcites [110] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Speech decoder design and Methods (Neural decoder; page numbers unavailable) describe a different two-stage process: an ECoG-based neural network first decodes articulatory features, then another network converts those features to acoustic features. Audio is synthesized afterward, not as the second decoding stage. The paper treats direct neural-to-acoustic decoding as a separate comparator. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Together, imagined, silently attempted and attempted speech reflect intended speech from the participant, which is distinct from internal monologues or thoughts139.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Best practices for evaluating and implementing speech neuroprostheses > Evaluation and standardization
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [139] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Speech Neuroprosthesis as a Mind-Reading Device” (page unavailable), the paper says covert speech can include internal monologue and that distinguishing speech intended for externalisation from speech not intended for it is a central difficulty. It also warns that imagined speech could be captured without the user intending to express it. This contradicts the claim that imagined speech is necessarily intended speech distinct from thoughts or internal monologue. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Studies furthering our basic understanding of the cortical encoding of speech features, notably motor control of the vocal-tract articulators during speech, laid the groundwork for a speech neuroprosthesis that decoded text in the form of words and sentences from the cortical activity of an individual with incomplete locked-in syndrome who relied on AAC methods to communicate12.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [12] source
The Discussion reports real-time decoding of full words and sentences from the participant’s cortical activity and connects the result to earlier work on speech-production representations. The Methods (Participant) describe severe paralysis and anarthria after a pontine stroke, with residual head movement used to operate an assistive typing interface—consistent with the citing sentence’s description of incomplete locked-in syndrome and reliance on AAC. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Bouchard et al.17 first demonstrated the dynamics of somatotopic speech-articulator representations in the SMC for the jaw, lips, tongue and larynx during speech production of syllables (Fig. 1; Bouchard et al. 2013).”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Cortical encoding of speech features
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [17] source
The Abstract reports cortical recordings during consonant-vowel syllable production and says the articulator representations were somatotopically arranged and temporally coordinated. The Spatial Representation of Articulators and Timing of Articulator Representations sections identify the jaw, lips, tongue, and larynx and describe their spatial arrangement and timing during syllable production. (LLM, conf=0.92)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Neural populations in the ventral sensorimotor cortex (vSMC) and the middle precentral gyrus (midPrCG) control the millisecond-level movements of the vocal-tract articulators (lips, tongue, jaw and larynx) that give rise to speech sounds17,18 (Fig. 2a).”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Overview of speech features
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [17] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and Discussion describe vSMC representations of vocal-tract articulators and their coordination in producing speech sounds. The Timing of Articulator Representations section places articulator movements on a scale of tens of milliseconds. The paper does not identify the middle precentral gyrus (midPrCG) as a separate region controlling those movements; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [18] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract (page unavailable) reports somatomotor maps of vocal-tract articulation spanning primary motor and somatosensory areas, and the Results locate articulation-related activity on the precentral gyrus. But the paper does not identify the middle precentral gyrus specifically or establish millisecond-level control by these neural populations. The Discussion (page unavailable) says its findings do not directly address the planning and sequencing of articulator movements. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Interestingly, at the neuronal level, locations on the anterior precentral gyrus in orofacial or hand areas contain single neurons tuned to movements of the whole body, including key speech articulators15,51,52.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Cortical encoding of speech features
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [15] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Main section (page not provided) reports intermixed tuning to the jaw, larynx, lips and tongue at a single-neuron level in area 6v. It studied attempted orofacial movements and speech, but does not establish tuning to movements of the whole body or report such tuning in hand areas. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites [51] source
The Results section reports tuning to face movements, including mouth, tongue and speaking, alongside head, arm and leg movements in the hand-knob area of the precentral gyrus. It also reports that well-isolated single neurons were frequently tuned to multiple movement types. This paper supports the hand-area portion of the sentence; the sentence groups it with other citations for orofacial areas. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites [52] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports neurons responding to mouth and tongue movements in the dorsal arm-and-hand area of motor cortex. It describes representation of much of the body as a suggestion based partly on emerging work, not a finding that individual neurons are tuned to whole-body movements. This study recorded in the hand area of two people with tetraplegia, not in orofacial areas. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Current speech-decoding applications from brain activity are primarily aimed at restoring communication to individuals with both limb and vocal-tract paralysis14–16.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Neurological speech disorders impairing communication
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [14] source
The Abstract describes speech neuroprostheses as a way to restore communication to people with paralysis and identifies this study’s participant as having severe limb and vocal paralysis. The Overview likewise says the system was designed to enable that participant to communicate by decoding intended speech. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites [15] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and Discussion describe speech BCIs as a way to restore communication to people with paralysis and discuss people with severe speech and motor impairment. They do not establish that current applications are primarily aimed at people with both limb and vocal-tract paralysis. The Main section says this participant retained limited orofacial movement and could vocalize, though she could not speak intelligibly. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites [16] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes speech brain-computer interfaces as a way to restore lost communication. But the Methods (Study participant) describe a person with severe limb impairment and dysarthria, and the Limitations (Decoding speech in patients with other neurological impairments) state that he retained voluntary bulbar muscle control. The paper therefore does not establish that current applications are primarily aimed at people with both limb and vocal-tract paralysis. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Years of work focused on mapping premotor and primary motor representations on the precentral gyrus and central sulcus, revealing a somatotopic organization in which neural control of muscle groups is represented along the ventral–dorsal axis34–38.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Cortical encoding of speech features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [34] source
- Not matchedcites [35]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [36] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [37] source
- Supportedcites [38] source
The Main section describes the long-established somatotopic map of primary motor cortex and says later imaging and electrophysiology recapitulated it. It also locates foot representation near the midline, hand superior-laterally, and tongue laterally, consistent with the cited sentence’s broad description of an anatomical ordering of body-part representations. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Subsequent work discovered that SMC populations encode articulatory kinematic trajectories and vocal-tract configurations43 during continuous speech24,39,44,45 (Fig. 1; Mugler et al. 2018, Chartier et al. 2018 and Dichter et al. 2018).”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Cortical encoding of speech features
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [43] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that precentral-gyrus activity represented articulatory gestures more strongly than phonemes. But the Results describe recordings during single-word, monosyllabic utterances, not continuous speech. The paper estimated articulator trajectories to label gestures; it does not establish that the recorded populations encoded continuous kinematic trajectories or vocal-tract configurations. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Supportedcites [24] source
The Discussion (page not supplied) states that discrete neural populations in human sensorimotor cortex encode articulatory kinematic trajectories during continuous speech production. The Results section on single vSMC electrodes (page not supplied) also describes trajectories corresponding to specific vocal-tract configurations. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Partly supportedcites [39] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Volumetric Results and Surface Results (pages not provided) locate somatomotor activity associated with articulation, tongue movement, and vocalization during a short syllable task. They do not show that SMC populations encode vocal-tract configurations or articulatory kinematic trajectories during continuous speech. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Partly supportedcites [44] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section ('dLMC and vLMC encoding of pitch components') reports that sensorimotor-cortex electrodes encode pitch accent, phrase, and voicing during spoken sentences. But the Methods ('Acoustic analysis') explicitly says the model does not track articulators directly or model their movements, so this paper does not establish encoding of articulatory kinematic trajectories. The citing sentence places a separate citation immediately after 'vocal-tract configurations.' (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Could not verifycites [45] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Cerebellum section describes mapping lip, tongue and laryngeal activity during vocalization, and the Motor Cortex section discusses laryngeal representations. Neither reports that SMC populations encode articulatory trajectories or vocal-tract configurations during continuous speech (searched for those terms and related descriptions). The indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.75)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Chartier et al.24 discovered that the SMC encodes a large variety of low-dimensional movement trajectories of the vocal tract (also called gestures), which could be directly related to all consonants and vowels.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Cortical encoding of speech features
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [24] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Kinematic organization of vSMC; page unavailable) report distinct articulatory trajectories associated with broad consonant groupings and vowel clusters, supporting the central claim that vSMC encodes vocal-tract movements related to speech sounds. The paper says the consonant groupings broadly cover English consonants, but its analysis excludes liquids and does not establish a direct correspondence to every consonant and vowel. The Methods describe concise seven-value representations of the trajectories, though they do not characterize the full trajectories as low-dimensional. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
- Probably not a substantial claim. 35
- It may state two separate claims as one. 50
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Another important acoustic feature is the fundamental frequency at which the laryngeal vocal folds resonate during speech, which forms the basis of pitch and can be estimated from the acoustic waveform, using algorithms that infer the periodicity of a temporal signal28,29 (Fig. 2e).”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Overview of speech features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [28] source
- Partly supportedcites [29] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction section “Larynx and its peripheral nervous control” says vibrating vocal folds produce the basic sound wave and that changes in vocal-fold length modulate fundamental frequency. The paper also discusses pitch modulation, but the passages do not explicitly connect fundamental frequency to perceived pitch or describe estimating it from an acoustic waveform using periodicity algorithms. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, communication rates for neuroprostheses controlled by attempted hand movements remain slower and less expressive than natural speech10.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [10] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Toward a Speech Neuroprosthesis” (page unavailable), the paper says neuroprostheses that decode arm-movement signals to control a spelling cursor achieve under 10 words per minute, versus 120–150 words per minute for natural speech. It describes speech features such as prosodic intonation, but does not directly establish that hand-movement-controlled neuroprostheses are less expressive. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Speech enables efficient and rapid communication at rates of around 150–200 words per minute (WPM) in conversational settings10.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Neurological speech disorders impairing communication
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [10] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The 'Toward a Speech Neuroprosthesis' section describes speech as efficient, rapid communication and gives natural speaking rates of 120–150 words per minute in healthy speakers. It does not support the cited range of 150–200 words per minute or specify that rate for conversational settings. No page number is supplied in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the midPrCG is involved across many speech functions and does not appear strongly tuned to — that is, consistently and exclusively activated by — a single articulatory group or movement (Fig. 2a), potentially instead having a critical role in speech-motor planning47–50.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Cortical encoding of speech features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [47] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [48] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [49] source
- Partly supportedcites [50] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (Lessons; page unavailable) proposes that the middle precentral gyrus helps sequence motor plans independently of the articulators involved, and the Observations describe effects across speaking, reading, and writing. The case does not assess whether the region is consistently and exclusively activated by a particular articulatory group or movement, so it cannot establish the claim about tuning. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Subsequent work has expanded this initial demonstration by directly decoding cortical activity into audible speech13,14 and allowing more generalizable and rapid text decoding14–16 in individuals with vocal-tract paralysis (Fig. 1).”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [13] source
The Discussion reports that a participant with ALS and impaired articulation and phonation produced acoustic speech through online decoding of cortical ECoG activity. This supports the audible-speech part of the sentence for which this paper is cited; the separate text-decoding claim has additional citations and is not attributed to this paper alone. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites [14] source
The Abstract reports real-time decoding of cortical recordings into synthesized speech audio and rapid, large-vocabulary text in a participant with severe vocal paralysis. The Discussion says text decoding was faster than previous BCIs and used a vocabulary 20 times larger than the authors’ previous system. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Supportedcites [15] source
The text-decoding portion of the citing sentence is supported. In “Decoding attempted speech,” the paper reports real-time decoding with a 125,000-word vocabulary suitable for general English; the Discussion reports a speed of 62 words per minute. The study participant had ALS and could no longer speak intelligibly. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.89)
- Partly supportedcites [16] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract reports rapid cortical-activity-to-text decoding with a 125,000-word vocabulary, and Results > Online decoding performance says the decoder generalized to new words. But Limitations > Decoding speech in patients with other neurological impairments says this participant had ALS-related dysarthria, retained some voluntary bulbar muscle control, and that performance in people with anarthria is unknown. The cited work therefore supports the text-decoding advance, not its application to individuals with complete vocal-tract paralysis. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Dichter et al.44 defined dorsal and ventral laryngeal cortical representations, with the dorsal one controlling vocal pitch for prosodic intonation in English44 and, interestingly, lexical tone production in Mandarin46.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Cortical encoding of speech features
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [44] source
The Results sections on natural speech intonation and dLMC/vLMC pitch components describe an English word-emphasis task, identify dorsal and ventral laryngeal motor cortex representations, and link dLMC activity to pitch accents. The Mandarin lexical-tone statement is attached to citation 46, not to Dichter et al. (citation 44), so it is outside this verdict. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Supportedcites [46] source
The Results section, “Intraoperative direct electrical stimulation of dLMC elicits pitch rising and lowering” (page not provided), reports that stimulating dorsal laryngeal motor cortex changed pitch during Mandarin tone production. The Introduction (page not provided) also describes dorsal and ventral laryngeal motor regions and cites earlier work on dorsal pitch control in English; the citing sentence assigns that earlier work to citation 44, not this paper. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Neural activity in the STG encodes acoustic features — for example, recurring speech sound patterns in the mel-spectrogram — during speech perception53,54 and may be used to reconstruct perceived speech55,56.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Cortical encoding of speech features
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [53] source
The Introduction reports that speech-selective STG regions are tuned to spectrotemporal acoustic patterns and that speech signals can be reconstructed from STG activity using STM-based models. The reconstruction result is reported from an earlier study, not presented as a new result of this paper. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites [54] source
The paper reports STG responses to speech sounds and finds that phonetic-feature selectivity reflects tuning to acoustic spectrotemporal cues (section labeled Abstract; page not provided). In the citing sentence, this source supports the encoding claim; separate citations 55 and 56 are attached to the reconstruction claim. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [55] source
The citation is attached to the claim that neural activity may be used to reconstruct perceived speech. The Introduction’s Figure 1 description says listeners heard speech and their evoked auditory-cortex activity was used to reconstruct it; the Results (Neural recordings) confirm that some recording electrodes covered the STG. The mel-spectrogram example is attached to different citations and is not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [56] source
The Discussion reports that key features of continuous speech were accurately reconstructed from STG neural responses using spectrogram-based models. The Results describe participants listening to words while electrodes over the temporal gyrus recorded signals used to reconstruct speech spectrograms. The claim does not imply that the reconstructed speech was intelligible to human listeners. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Although these non-invasive techniques have facilitated decoding of limited vocabularies of imagined words, syllables and speech sounds75,76 and reconstruction of semantic content of speech68 (Fig. 1; Tang et al. 2023), they are not portable — with the exception of EEG — and low spatial or temporal resolution has hindered scaling decoding to larger vocabularies and longer speech segments (senten”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Neural-recording interfaces
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [75] source
Section 2.4 (Choice of Prompts; page unavailable) describes EEG decoding studies using small sets of imagined syllables, vowels and words. Section 4.4 discusses their classification performance. The semantic-content reconstruction clause is attached to a different citation, so it is not attributed to this review. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [76] source
The Discussion (section 8) reports EEG-based classification of limited sets of imagined words, syllables, vowels, and phonemes. The sentence cites other sources for reconstruction of semantic content, so that is not attributed to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [68] source
The Tang et al. citation is attached to the reconstruction of semantic content, not the preceding claim about limited vocabularies. The Introduction describes a decoder using non-invasive fMRI to reconstruct perceived or imagined stimuli in continuous natural language, and the Discussion states that it reconstructs meaning, though often not the exact words. The supplied passages have section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The first efforts towards a speech neuroprosthesis for an individual with vocal-tract paralysis, developed by Phil Kennedy and Frank Guenther, used an intracortical neurotrophic microelectrode placed in the precentral gyrus, which allowed above-chance synthesis of vowel formants84 and decoding of phonemes85 (Fig. 1; Guenther et al. 2009 and Brumberg et al. 2011).”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Neural-recording interfaces
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [84] source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Supportedcites [85] source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Previous demonstrations of intracortical insertion of MEAs showed injury and neuronal loss at the implantation location99, as well as signal instabilities contributing to signal loss and performance decline over time100,101.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Neural-recording interfaces
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [99] source
The Discussion reports a 63% decrease in neuron density around implanted Utah-array shanks compared with nearby non-implanted tissue in a non-human primate, describing it as a drastic disruption of neural populations. Citation 99 is attached to the injury and neuronal-loss clause; the separate claim about signal instabilities has other citations. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [100] source
The citation to this paper is attached to the signal-instability and declining-performance portion of the sentence, not the injury and neuronal-loss portion. Section 4.6 reports sporadic recordings and progressive decay in signal quality, while sections 5.3–5.4 discuss causes of signal loss and instability. The copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Supportedcites [101] source
Citation 99 is attached to the injury and neuronal-loss clause, not the later signal-instability clause. The Introduction reports tissue damage near an implanted human array and describes neuronal loss around electrode tips from device insertion. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The high-γ band of the local field potential (70–150 Hz) correlates with neuronal firing rates underneath each ECoG electrode86,87 and captures cortical representations of acoustic and articulatory features relevant to speech17,88,89 (Fig. 1; Crone et al. 1998, 2001).”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Neural-recording interfaces
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [86] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not provided) reports that high-gamma LFP activity correlates with neuronal firing near a microelectrode in macaque visual cortex. It does not establish that relationship underneath each ECoG electrode, and the Introduction defines high gamma as 80–200 Hz rather than 70–150 Hz. The speech-feature clause has separate citations in the citing sentence and is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites [87] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that LFP high-gamma power is tightly correlated with firing rate near a microelectrode. It distinguishes this measured result from its ECoG model, in which high-gamma power is more sensitive to firing synchrony than to firing rate; it does not establish the claimed correlation underneath each ECoG electrode. The speech-feature clause has separate citations and is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Partly supportedcites [17] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s ‘Phonetic Organization of Spatial Patterns’ section links cortical activity to articulators and vowel states, supporting the articulatory part of the claim. Its ‘vSMC Physiology During Syllable Production’ section also says high-gamma activity correlates with multi-unit firing rates, but specifies 85–175 Hz rather than 70–150 Hz. The cited passages do not establish that this paper found cortical representations of acoustic features; its acoustic analysis describes the recorded speech sounds. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [88] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [89] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Functional MRI, by contrast, has higher spatial specificity but lower temporal resolution than EEG and MEG as it measures changes in cerebral blood flow as a correlate of neural activity74.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Neural-recording interfaces
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [74] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page not provided) says BOLD fMRI can localize activated brain areas and that its response lags a stimulus by 1–2 seconds. It does not compare fMRI’s spatial or temporal resolution with EEG or MEG. It describes changes in blood oxygen, rather than directly measuring cerebral blood flow. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Recent studies using direct intracranial recordings have been instrumental to define a functional organization of the SMC and the precise cortical dynamics for speech movements17,24,43,44 (Fig. 1; Bouchard et al. 2013, Mugler et al. 2018, Chartier et al. 2018 and Dichter et al. 2018).”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Cortical encoding of speech features
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [17] source
The Abstract reports high-resolution cortical recordings during syllable production and describes both the organization of speech-articulator representations and their transitions over tens of milliseconds. The Discussion likewise says the direct recordings revealed spatial and temporal profiles of speech-articulator representations in human ventral SMC. The supplied passages do not give page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites [24] source
The Introduction describes high-density intracranial ECoG recordings during continuous speech to study articulatory movement dynamics. The Results (Kinematic organization of vSMC) report spatial organization by kinematic function and place of articulation, supporting the claim about functional organization. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not matchedcites [43]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites [44] source
The Introduction describes high-density intracranial recordings used to resolve rapid pitch changes in natural speech and identify the functional roles of laryngeal motor cortex regions. The Discussion says their spatial and temporal resolution revealed local encoding in those regions at the time scale of speech intonation, supporting this paper’s contribution to the cited group of studies. (LLM, conf=0.90)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Previously, data on the long-term safety and stability of ECoG primarily came from its application in epilepsy82,90–92, including the paddle-style surface strip electrodes with the Neuropace responsive neurostimulation system, which has demonstrated safety and signal stability for at least 9 years92.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Neural-recording interfaces
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [82] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [90] source
- Not matchedcites [91]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites [92] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Converging evidence suggests that Broca’s area, although classically posited as critical for speech production, may not have a critical role in speech articulation15,69,70 but may instead be involved in word retrieval and grammar71,72, although this is an active research area71.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Cortical encoding of speech features
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [15] source
The Main section reports little to no information about orofacial movements, phonemes or words in area 44, which it identifies as part of Broca’s area. It says this finding is consistent with work questioning Broca’s area’s traditional role in speech, supporting the citing sentence’s hedged articulation claim. The word-retrieval and grammar clause has different citations and is not attributed to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Partly supportedcites [69] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions (page not provided) report that resection of anatomically defined Broca’s area was not significantly associated with Broca’s aphasia or speech fluency in this cohort. That supports questioning its critical role in fluent speech, but the study did not directly test speech articulation, which is more specific. The word-retrieval and grammar clause has separate citations and is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [70] source
- Partly supportedcites [71] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Posterior inferior frontal gyrus” section links Broca’s area, particularly its anterior sector, to grammatical aspects of speech production. Our copy does not establish a role for Broca’s area in word retrieval; searches for “word retrieval” and “lexical retrieval” found no supporting passage. The separate articulation claim is attached to other citations in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Partly supportedcites [72] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Discussion (pages unavailable in our copy) support a role for the left inferior frontal gyrus, including Broca’s area, in syntactic encoding and grammar. They do not establish a role in word retrieval; the study distinguished its syntactic-encoding sites from sites that disrupted picture naming. The articulation clause has separate citations and is not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Successful classification of a limited set of produced sentences in the setting of question-and-answer dialogue has been demonstrated, where incorporating context from the predicted question improved classification of the answer117.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [117] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods (Experimental task design) describe a limited question-and-answer task with 24 possible spoken answers, and the Results (Question and answer decoding performance) report higher answer-classification accuracy when predicted-question context was integrated. But Table 1 shows that the produced answers were mostly single words or short phrases, not sentences; the questions were the sentences participants heard. (LLM, conf=0.87)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Individuals with dysarthria may retain some intelligible vocalization over single, isolated words, allowing the acoustic regression approach to prove successful in synthesizing single words13 (Fig. 1; Angrick et al. 2023; and Supplementary Table 1).”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [13] source
The Introduction says the participant with ALS could produce individual words that were intelligible when spoken in isolation, although his sentences were often unintelligible. It also describes mapping his neural activity to acoustic features; the Discussion reports successful synthesis of intelligible words from a closed vocabulary. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Supportedcites Angrick et al. 2023 source
The Introduction reports that the participant, who had substantial speech impairment, could produce isolated words intelligibly, though his sentences were often unintelligible. It also describes mapping his neural activity to acoustic features; the Discussion reports successful synthesis of intelligible words from a closed vocabulary. The claim describes this possibility rather than asserting that it applies to all individuals with dysarthria. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In this approach, MEA activity is decoded into subword units and converted into sentences using language models; this language model output is used as a ‘pseudo-label’ to update the RNN decoding model9,16,105.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] source
The 'Decoding handwritten sentences' section says the RNN converts neural activity into character probabilities and a language model processes the output. The 'Daily decoder retraining' section says the language model error-corrects the output and is used to retrain the decoder automatically, supporting the description of its output as pseudo-labels. The paper describes character-level decoding specifically; it does not use the term 'subword units.' (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [16] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Methods: Decoding speech describes neural activity being decoded into phonemes, then combined into words and sentences using language models. It does not say that language-model output serves as pseudo-labels to update an RNN. The Discussion instead describes rapid recalibration using ground-truth labels from displayed Copy Task sentences; the claimed automatic update mechanism is not established by these passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Supportedcites [105] source
Section 3.1 (page unavailable) says neural activity from microelectrode arrays is decoded by a GRU RNN into character probabilities, which language models process into words and a final sentence. The Introduction and §3.2.1 say the language-model-corrected output is used as a pseudo-label to retrain the decoder. The paper specifies characters as the subword units. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Anumanchipalli et al. added a first step of decoding an articulatory representation from neural activity, which was then mapped to the intermediate acoustic representation and vocoded into speech110.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [110] source
The Speech decoder design section describes decoding articulatory features from neural activity, then acoustic features from those articulatory features, before synthesizing an audio signal. The Methods section, “Speech synthesis from acoustic features,” specifies that the decoded acoustic features were used to generate speech waveforms. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Metzger et al. used this approach to decode neural activity during silent speech attempts from a participant with anarthria into synthesized speech; however, rather than regressing the mel-spectrogram, they decoded input sequences of neural activity into output sequences of discrete acoustic-speech units14.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [14] source
The Methods (Participant; page unavailable) identify the participant as having anarthria. The Speech synthesis and Methods (Speech synthesis; pages unavailable) describe decoding neural activity during silent speech attempts using CTC loss to predict discrete speech units, which were then converted into audible speech. The neural decoder predicted units rather than directly regressing a mel spectrogram; a downstream model generated the spectrogram. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Finally, an individual may feel greater embodiment when using a speech neuroprosthesis with a personalized voice that reflects their likeness14.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [14] source
The Abstract says that speech’s expressiveness and identity can enhance embodied communication, and the Speech synthesis section describes a voice personalized from the participant’s pre-injury speech. Together, these passages support the citing sentence’s hedged suggestion, though the paper does not report measuring a feeling of embodiment. (LLM, conf=0.85)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“As a first approach to counter a lack of alignment between neural activity and ground-truth targets, Moses et al.12 instructed a participant with anarthria to attempt to speak sentences word-by-word (with pauses between words).”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [12] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods (Word and Sentence Task Design; page not supplied) say the participant with anarthria attempted the words of each sentence in order. The Discussion identifies a time-alignment problem, but the Methods do not say he was instructed to pause between words; they say he attempted them at the fastest speed he could perform comfortably. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For example, brainstem-stroke survivors4,133,134 and individuals with ALS135 can retain varying degrees of control over orofacial movements and vocalization.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Best practices for evaluating and implementing speech neuroprostheses > Evaluation and standardization
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [4] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Table 2; page unavailable) report remaining voluntary mouth, face, or head movements in 25 of 42 patients with locked-in syndrome, and the Introduction identifies stroke and ALS as possible causes. The paper does not report retained control of vocalization; the Discussion describes the patients sought for the study as severely paralyzed people with no speech. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [133] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section, “Residual movement and current communication channels” (page unavailable), reports residual head-or-mouth movement and residual speech, including sounds or short words, in the neuromuscular-disorder group. The Methods section, “Participants” (page unavailable), says that group included ALS alongside other disorders. The paper does not report these findings separately for participants with ALS, so it does not establish the ALS-specific part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [134] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [135] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“however, for individuals with vocal-tract paralysis, their maximal rate of attempted speech can vary considerably and may depend on their residual articulatory capacities and degree of comfort4,133,134.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Best practices for evaluating and implementing speech neuroprostheses > Evaluation and standardization
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [4] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Discussion (pages not available in our copy) describe variation in remaining voluntary movements and communication methods among patients with locked-in syndrome. They do not address the maximal rate of attempted speech or whether it depends on residual articulatory capacity or comfort; searches for those terms found no pertinent passage. (LLM, conf=0.75)
- Could not verifycites [133] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results sections report differences in residual speech and preferences for attempted speech, but do not measure maximal attempted-speech rate or link it to articulatory capacity or comfort. The questionnaire methods explicitly focused on mental-strategy preferences rather than system speed. Searches for speech rate, articulation, and comfort found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [134] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Able speakers often speak at rates of around 150 WPM during conversational speech10; however, for individuals with vocal-tract paralysis, their maximal rate of attempted speech can vary considerably and may depend on their residual articulatory capacities and degree of comfort4,133,134.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Best practices for evaluating and implementing speech neuroprostheses > Evaluation and standardization
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [10] source
In “Toward a Speech Neuroprosthesis” (page not specified), the paper gives natural speaking rates of 120–150 words per minute in healthy speakers. This supports the cited estimate of around 150 WPM for able speakers. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Importantly, these large language models have the capacity to integrate conversational context into their predictions, which has been shown to improve neural-decoding pipelines117.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Future directions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [117] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that using the predicted question as conversational context improved decoding of the subsequent answer. The Methods > Modeling describes a context-integration model built from question likelihoods and predefined answer priors, not a large language model. The paper therefore supports the improvement from context, but not the attribution of that result to large language models. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Finally, speech decoders have yet to fully leverage paradigms of feedback-based learning that have the potential to entrain new patterns of neural activity for better control171–174.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Future directions
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [171] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and Experimental Paradigm describe intracranial recordings during speech initiation and a picture-naming task, not speech-decoder training. Searches for feedback-based learning, entrainment, and decoders found no passage addressing whether such paradigms have been underused or could improve decoder control. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)
- Partly supportedcites [172] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not provided) reports that new neural activity patterns emerged during learning of a monkey cursor-control BCI and led to improved behavior. It also suggests that guiding such patterns might facilitate learning in other contexts. The paper does not assess speech decoders or say whether they have fully leveraged feedback-based learning. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Partly supportedcites [173] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that closed-loop feedback during walking-avatar control changed cortical activity and could support adaptation learning and better BCI control. It does not address whether speech decoders have underused feedback-based learning, so the speech-specific part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [174] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2 (page unavailable) says that neurofeedback during motor imagery can promote changes in neural activation and help users generate signals detectable by a BCI classifier. That supports the proposed benefit of feedback-based learning, but the paper does not establish that speech decoders have yet to fully use such paradigms; its discussion concerns motor-imagery BCIs. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In addition, although not ready for chronic implantation, NeuroPixels, or similar probes that sample laminar cortex, may offer a method to record high-density single units across cortical layers in humans187,188.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Future directions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [187] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Electrophysiology figure captions describe recordings across cortical layers in rats, and the Discussion describes a high-channel-count, single-spike-resolution system as a prototype for future human implants. The Introduction says no clinically translatable microelectrode technology for large-scale recordings was then available. The paper does not establish that NeuroPixels specifically could provide laminar single-unit recordings in humans; its reported recordings used Neuralink polymer probes in rats. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Supportedcites [188] source
The Abstract reports simultaneous recordings from over 200 well-isolated cortical single units in humans, and the Discussion says the probe resolves units at different cortical depths. The study describes acute recordings and calls its approach a step toward developing chronic neural interfaces, consistent with the qualification that these probes were not yet ready for chronic implantation. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A recent non-peer-reviewed preprint found that neural populations in the SMA are among the earliest predictors of speech onset and may remain strongly activated in imagined and attempted speech170.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Future directions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [170] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The fMRI Paradigms section describes covert word-generation tasks, and the Figure 2 caption reports pre-SMA activation during those tasks. But this Journal of Neurosurgery case report does not establish that SMA neural populations are among the earliest predictors of speech onset or that they remain strongly activated during attempted speech; it is also not a non-peer-reviewed preprint. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Similarly, both in academic and industry settings, approaches are being developed to improve throughput, sampling, biocompatibility and stability of MEAs183–186.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Future directions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [183] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods (Device components; page not provided) describe an industry-developed, implantable 16-sensor electrode array, and the Results (Preliminary safety reporting; page not provided) report no device-related adverse events in two participants. This makes the paper an example of a developing array approach, but our copy does not show that it improves MEA throughput or sampling, or establish improved biocompatibility or long-term stability. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [184] source
- Supportedcites [185] source
The Spatial integration section (page unavailable) discusses increasing recorded-neuron counts and sampling resolution in MEAs. The Encouraging novel technologies and Stable long-term recording sections (pages unavailable) describe efforts to reduce tissue response and improve recording stability. Together, these passages support the attributed claim that approaches are being developed to improve MEA throughput, sampling, biocompatibility and stability. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [186] source
The Discussion (no page provided) describes a microwire-CMOS array scalable to tens of thousands of channels and a next-generation device already in development for greater electrode density and reduced tissue damage. It also describes the robustness and longevity of microwires; the Introduction (no page provided) discusses their suitability for chronic use and the potential to reduce foreign-body response. Together, these support the broad claim that approaches are being developed to improve MEA sampling, throughput, biocompatibility, and stability. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Transfer learning, either between individuals108 or different types of speech within the same individual120, may also be used to expedite decoder training.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Best practices for evaluating and implementing speech neuroprostheses > Practical implementation of a speech neuroprosthesis
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [108] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section (‘Transfer learning’; page not provided) reports that adding other sentences spoken by the same participant improved decoding of the target sentence set. This supports the cited point that related speech data may help decoder training, but the paper tests different sentence sets, not clearly different types of speech. The between-individual claim is attached to a different citation. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites [120] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section “Distinctions in evoked neural activity between silent- and overt-speech attempts” reports pretraining on one speech type and fine-tuning on the other within the same participant, with improved classification accuracy. It does not report whether this reduced decoder training time or the amount of training data needed. The separate between-individual claim is attached to another citation, not this paper. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Different approaches to increase the density and lower the invasiveness of ECoG are currently being developed for use in humans and animal models176–182.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Future directions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [176] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and Discussion (page numbers unavailable) describe a high-density thin-film ECoG array tested in humans and note related arrays used in animal studies. The paper describes the arrays as safe and conformal, but does not establish that the human approach lowers ECoG invasiveness; that part of the claim is not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Supportedcites [177] source
The Results describe a high-density µECoG array used in human patients, and the Methods (Intra-operative µECoG array implantation; page not provided) explain that its narrow, flexible design can be inserted through a burr hole opened for another procedure. The Introduction also discusses high-density µECoG work in rodents and non-human primates. Together, these passages support the cited paper as an example of the approaches described. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [178] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes efforts to increase ECoG electrode density, and the Discussion reports this paper’s 1152-electrode array tested in a monkey. The Introduction also describes ECoG as relatively low-invasive and mentions human and nonhuman-primate applications, but it does not say that this approach lowers ECoG’s invasiveness further. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Supportedcites [179] source
The Introduction describes μECoG arrays as high-resolution interfaces that are less invasive to cortical tissue than penetrating microelectrode arrays. It also reports their use in rats, non-human primates, and humans undergoing epilepsy monitoring, supporting this paper as an example of the approaches cited. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [180] source
The Conclusion (page unavailable) describes a high-density μECoG array that uses multiplexing to reduce output wires and the device’s footprint at the implantation site. It reports recordings over the rat auditory cortex, making this paper an example of the approaches cited for animal models. The sentence’s multiple citations do not require this paper alone to establish human use. (LLM, conf=0.89)
- Supportedcites [181] source
The Introduction describes minimally invasive, high-density µECoG arrays used in human patients, and the Discussion contrasts their flexible surface design with penetrating arrays. This paper supplies a human example of the approaches described; the sentence’s other citations need not each cover animal models. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [182] source
The Introduction describes a high-density, minimally invasive µECoG platform intended to facilitate human clinical use. The Minimally Invasive Surgical Implantation section reports testing in Göttingen minipigs, supporting this paper as an example of an approach developed for human use and studied in an animal model; it does not claim human testing. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The supplementary motor area (SMA) is another important region in the speech production network165,169 that is involved in speech initiation170.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Future directions
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [165] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and Methods describe hand-movement representations in primary motor and sensory cortex, not the supplementary motor area’s role in speech. Searches for the supplementary motor area, speech production, and speech initiation found no passage addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Could not verifycites [169] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion identifies STG, SMG, and dorsal precentral gyrus as speech-network regions, but does not identify the supplementary motor area (SMA) or assign it a role in speech initiation. Searches for “supplementary motor area,” “SMA,” and “speech initiation” found no passage addressing the attributed claim. No page numbers were provided for the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Supportedcites [170] source
The introduction describes speech hesitancy through mutism after surgery near the language-dominant SMA, and the Discussion reports pre-SMA activation during language tasks. Together, these passages support the SMA region’s role in speech production and initiation; the Discussion also links a tract connecting the pre-SMA with Broca’s area to speech-initiation deficits. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Separately, the feasibility of non-invasive methods for communication brain computer interfaces is being actively investigated77–80, with the goal of improving signal-to-noise and spatial resolution.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Future directions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [77] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not supplied) reports non-invasive functional ultrasound recording through a previously implanted acoustic window and describes task-state decoding as an initial step toward human brain-machine interfaces. The Introduction and Conclusion (pages not supplied) discuss the need for better sensitivity and spatial precision. The study does not investigate a communication interface, and its recording method requires prior skull reconstruction, so it does not establish a wholly non-invasive method. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Partly supportedcites [78] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes non-invasive EEG and fNIRS as methods used for communication BCIs and says hybrid systems are studied to improve classification accuracy and information transfer rate. It does not identify improved signal-to-noise ratio or spatial resolution as the goal; the paper instead focuses on maintaining performance with fewer sensors. The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [79] source
- Partly supportedcites [80] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) reports a noninvasive BCI used by locked-in patients to select letters for communication. The “Ultrasound Brain Functional Imaging–reading” section (page unavailable) discusses low spatial resolution in EEG, reduced signal-to-noise ratio for deep MEG sources, and advances in ultrasound resolution. It does not specifically say that improving both measures is the goal of research on communication BCIs. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
In the paper
“Pitch can be modulated over the course of a phrase to convey additional meaning to the produced words (phrasal prosody), such as whether an utterance is a statement or question (rise in pitch at the end of the phrase)11.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Overview of speech features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [11]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In addition, pitch is an important aspect of the uniqueness and expressivity of the voice of a person31.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Overview of speech features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [31] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Often, a mel-frequency scale — in which frequency is logarithmically transformed — is used to visualize the speech spectrogram, as this emphasizes power in perceptually salient frequency bands that better correspond to how the human auditory system processes sound27 (Fig. 2e).”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Overview of speech features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [27] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Speech neuroprostheses have the potential to not only enable more natural communication of words and sentences but also restore other expressive components of communication that convey meaning, such as intonation, loudness and facial gestures11.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [11]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“During continuous speech, the vocal-tract muscles move rapidly between different configurations that may be grouped as labial, front tongue, back tongue and vocalic21 (Fig. 2b) on the basis of where air is constricted in the vocal tract.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Overview of speech features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In tonal languages, such as Mandarin, the meaning of individual words depends on their associated pitch contour (lexical tone)30.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Overview of speech features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [30] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The envelope of the acoustic waveform illustrates the intensity of speech over time (Fig. 2d), which is an important measurement that correlates with speech rate, global stress patterns and loudness11.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Overview of speech features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [11]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“These articulator movements are coordinated with expiration of air to produce the sound waves of speech19.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Overview of speech features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Phonemes are defined as the smallest perceptually distinct units of sound that form a language (39 unstressed phonemes exist in English)32,33.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Overview of speech features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [32]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [33]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Phonemes are particularly useful for text decoding, given that they form a discrete, low-dimensional representation of speech (~39D in English) that can be scaled to produce the much larger vocabularies of words and sentences21.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Overview of speech features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“circumventing motor-pathway injury by directly decoding speech from intact cortical activity has the potential to restore natural communication and self-expression”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Phonemes can be grouped on the basis of similarities in their sound patterns, and their articulatory features — the place of articulation of a phoneme in the vocal tract — provide one important grouping category21.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Overview of speech features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, although the ventral–dorsal axis of the SMC issomatotopically arranged in brain areas at the level of neural populations, at the single-neuron level, it may have a more heterogeneous and distributed arrangement.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Cortical encoding of speech features
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although these non-invasive techniques have facilitated decoding of limited vocabularies of imagined words, syllables and speech sounds75,76 and reconstruction of semantic content of speech68 (Fig. 1; Tang et al. 2023), they are not portable — with the exception of EEG — and low spatial or temporal resolution has hindered scaling decoding to larger vocabularies and longer speech segments (senten”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Neural-recording interfaces
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although more work is needed to validate long-term robustness and signal stability with MEAs, their potential for high-performance speech decoding in combination with computational recalibration for stable acquisition offers potential for future use as a clinically viable neuroprosthesis.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Neural-recording interfaces
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These techniques have relatively high temporal resolution but lack spatial specificity, with each sensor recording from a large area of the brain73.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Neural-recording interfaces
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [73] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“By targeting words within sentences, rather than whole sentences, and leveraging contemporary machine-learning techniques, this RNN-based approach improved accuracy and the overall vocabulary size and number of sentences that could be decoded.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A speech-detection model used cortical activity, primarily from the SMC, to predict when the individual was attempting to speak a word and passed the corresponding neural features to a word-classification model trained to predict probabilities across 50 words in a predefined vocabulary.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although this approach facilitated alignment-free speech synthesis, suited to scale to fully locked in individuals, it is not yet ideal for low-latency streaming.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An advantage of this concatenative-synthesis approach is its feasibility with smaller dataset sizes; however, it does not fully leverage advances in machine learning, relying on time window correlations.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As spoken language is a more fundamental form of human communication than written language (text), this approach can enable more fine-grained and natural control over decoded outputs.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Spoken language is a more fundamental form of human communication than written language.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This acoustic regression approach achieved higher-performance speech synthesis, probably owing to the ability of a deep-neural network to learn complex nonlinear mappings between inputs and outputs.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, these potential benefits come with increased difficulty; speech synthesis has generally proven more challenging than text decoding, as it does not leverage language models and predefined vocabularies.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although this approach facilitated access to a large vocabulary, while still using intended speech, decoding speeds were slower and communication was less natural for the individual.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It is possible that low-latency restoration of audible speech could have analogous benefits to rapid closed-loop feedback for neuroprosthetic control in other motor domains124.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [124] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the speech-detection model used provided word-level alignment, direct classification from a 50-word vocabulary limited this approach.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The individual then had the ability to spell character-by-character and language models could transform decoded-character sequences into sentences comprised from a vocabulary of more than 1,000 words (Supplementary Table 1).”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Supplementary Table 1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Often in ASR, to prevent equal weighing of short and long sentences, error rates are computed over paragraphs or longer segments of text143,144 rather than across individual sentences.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Best practices for evaluating and implementing speech neuroprostheses > Evaluation and standardization
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, in English, the most common 1,000 words can cover more than 85% of the content in spoken sentences156.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Best practices for evaluating and implementing speech neuroprostheses > Evaluation and standardization
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [156] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In ASR, a 5% WER, over longer segments of text, is standard for professional-level transcriptions141 and 25% or less is considered acceptable142.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Best practices for evaluating and implementing speech neuroprostheses > Evaluation and standardization
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Open-ended human-transcribed WER complements MCD by providing a more interpretable metric derived from the perceptual intelligibility of the synthesized speech.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Best practices for evaluating and implementing speech neuroprostheses > Evaluation and standardization
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Most previous neural speech-synthesis systems have not been highly intelligible with an open-ended vocabulary152 and, thus, have used forced-choice listening tests or word-level classification accuracies instead of open-ended WER.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Best practices for evaluating and implementing speech neuroprostheses > Evaluation and standardization
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [152] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Non-verbal facial expressions that accompany virtual or face-to-face communication provide numerous benefits compared with audio-only communication, including improved conveyance of emotion and attitude130,131, that provides increased clarity132.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [130]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [131]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [132] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, lower frequency words remain an important component of natural language because they facilitate expressivity156.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Best practices for evaluating and implementing speech neuroprostheses > Evaluation and standardization
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [156] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A language’s vocabulary is characterized by Zipf’s law, from which it follows that the most common words in a language make up a disproportionate amount of spoken content in that language155.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Best practices for evaluating and implementing speech neuroprostheses > Evaluation and standardization
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [155] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For large-vocabulary sizes, it is not feasible to evaluate performance on every word.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Best practices for evaluating and implementing speech neuroprostheses > Evaluation and standardization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A growing literature aims to define general machine-learning principles to encourage the development of scalable, reliable and efficient systems160.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Best practices for evaluating and implementing speech neuroprostheses > Practical implementation of a speech neuroprosthesis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [160] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, high-performance speech decoding has yet to be demonstrated in an individual that is fully locked-in with negligible residual motor function.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Future directions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, many of the aforementioned user concerns — ease of use, re-training periods and data privacy — are not unique to neuroprostheses but rather apply to many machine-learning-based applications.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Best practices for evaluating and implementing speech neuroprostheses > Practical implementation of a speech neuroprosthesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, in some situations, users may prefer to limit their output space of speech to single, high-utility words and/or phrases (such as ‘no’, ‘yes’, ‘thank you’, ‘not now’ or ‘bring that’) in exchange for near-perfect decoding performance157.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Best practices for evaluating and implementing speech neuroprostheses > Practical implementation of a speech neuroprosthesis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [157] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although spelling and classification approaches may be critical to a practical system for daily use, they do not address users’ desire for high-speed and natural communication.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Best practices for evaluating and implementing speech neuroprostheses > Practical implementation of a speech neuroprosthesis
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
In individuals with dysarthria or anarthria, cerebral cortex neuronal populations that contain representations of articulatory movements may remain intact.
“Importantly, in individuals with dysarthria or anarthria, cerebral cortex neuronal populations, which contain representations of articulatory movements used to produce sounds, may remain intact.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Spoken language is a more fundamental form of human communication than written language.
“As spoken language is a more fundamental form of human communication than written language (text), this approach can enable more fine-grained and natural control over decoded outputs.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
“Text (Fig. 3b) and synthesized speech (Fig. 3c) are two outputs commonly used in speech-decoding systems.”
§ The speech neuroprosthesis > Decoding speech from articulatory features > Modelling speech features from neural activity
“In the second stage, a speech synthesizer — a vocoder — is used to convert the acoustic representation into an audible speech waveform (Fig. 3b).”
Citations
Cites
“Librispeech: an ASR corpus based on public domain audio books,”
Panayotov, V., Chen, G., Povey, D., & Khudanpur, S. (2015) · 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) · doi:10.1109/icassp.2015.7178964 · Cited by 6,072
Graves, A., Fernández, S., Gomez, F., & Schmidhuber, J. (2006) · Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning - ICML '06 · doi:10.1145/1143844.1143891 · Cited by 5,370
LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models
Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.-A., Lacroix, T., Rozière, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., Azhar, F., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13971 · Cited by 4,602 · cited 1×
“Another approach to improve decoding performance is to leverage large language models, which are currently being developed in industry 145,195 , to score the likelihood of decoded sentences from neural activity.”
PENFIELD, W., & BOLDREY, E. (1937) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/60.4.389 · Cited by 4,188
An Introduction to Variational Autoencoders
Kingma, D. P., & Welling, M. (2019) · Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning · doi:10.1561/2200000056 · Cited by 2,609 · cited 1×
“One potential avenue is to leverage advancements in self-supervised learning 189 to learn latent representations that best capture behaviour-related dynamics, even when noise is present in the neural activity 121,190–194 .”
Visual Contribution to Speech Intelligibility in Noise
Sumby, W. H., & Pollack, I. (1954) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1907309 · Cited by 2,583 · cited 1×
“Non-verbal facial expressions that accompany virtual or face-to-face communication provide numerous benefits compared with audio-only communication, including improved conveyance of emotion and attitude 130,131 , that provides increased clarity 132 .”
SWITCHBOARD: telephone speech corpus for research and development
Godfrey, J. J., Holliman, E. C., & McDaniel, J. (1992) · [Proceedings] ICASSP-92: 1992 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp.1992.225858 · Cited by 2,134
Robust Speech Recognition via Large-Scale Weak Supervision
Radford, A., Kim, J. W., Xu, T., Brockman, G., McLeavey, C., & Sutskever, I. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.04356 · Cited by 1,953
Sequence Transduction with Recurrent Neural NetworksPreprint
Graves, A. (2012) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1211.3711 · Cited by 1,842 · cited 1×
“Contemporary machine-learning architectures, tailored for streaming, may also reduce the latency at which speech-synthesis and text-decoding systems operate 196,197 .”
Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex
Huth, A. G., de Heer, W. A., Griffiths, T. L., Theunissen, F. E., & Gallant, J. L. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature17637 · Cited by 1,504
Closed-loop brain training: the science of neurofeedback
Sitaram, R., Ros, T., Stoeckel, L., Haller, S., Scharnowski, F., Lewis-Peacock, J., Weiskopf, N., Blefari, M. L., Rana, M., Oblak, E., et al. (2017) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.164 · Cited by 1,306
Articulatory gestures as phonological units
Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. M. (1989) · Phonology · doi:10.1017/s0952675700001019 · Cited by 1,216
An Integrated Brain-Machine Interface Platform With Thousands of Channels
Musk, E., & Neuralink (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/16194 · Cited by 1,206
Murray, I. R., & Arnott, J. L. (1993) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.405558 · Cited by 1,098 · cited 1×
“In addition, pitch is an important aspect of the uniqueness and expressivity of the voice of a person 31 .”
Crone, N. (1998) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/121.12.2301 · Cited by 1,044 · cited 2×
“The high-γ band of the local field potential (70–150 Hz) correlates with neuronal firing rates underneath each ECoG electrode 86,87 and captures cortical representations of acoustic and articulatory features relevant to speech 17,88,89 (Fig.”
High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting
Willett, F. R., Avansino, D. T., Hochberg, L. R., Henderson, J. M., & Shenoy, K. V. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03506-2 · Cited by 1,024 · cited 4×
“In this approach, MEA activity is decoded into subword units and converted into sentences using language models; this language model output is used as a ‘pseudo-label’ to update the RNN decoding model 9,16,105 .”
InfluentialDifferent Origins of Gamma Rhythm and High-Gamma Activity in Macaque Visual Cortex
Ray, S., & Maunsell, J. H. R. (2011) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000610 · Cited by 1,012 · cited 1×
“The high-γ band of the local field potential (70–150 Hz) correlates with neuronal firing rates underneath each ECoG electrode 86,87 and captures cortical representations of acoustic and articulatory features relevant to speech 17,88,89 (Fig.”
Phonetic Feature Encoding in Human Superior Temporal Gyrus
Mesgarani, N., Cheung, C., Johnson, K., & Chang, E. F. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1245994 · Cited by 993 · cited 1×
“Neural activity in the STG encodes acoustic features — for example, recurring speech sound patterns in the mel-spectrogram — during speech perception 53,54 and may be used to reconstruct perceived speech 55,56 .”
Self-citationSpeech synthesis from neural decoding of spoken sentences
Anumanchipalli, G. K., Chartier, J., & Chang, E. F. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1119-1 · Cited by 883 · cited 23×
“Anumanchipalli et al. added a first step of decoding an articulatory representation from neural activity, which was then mapped to the intermediate acoustic representation and vocoded into speech 110 .”
InfluentialSelf-citationInner Speech: Development, Cognitive Functions, Phenomenology, and Neurobiology
Alderson-Day, B., & Fernyhough, C. (2015) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000021 · Cited by 864
Machine Learning Operations (MLOps): Overview, Definition, and Architecture
Kreuzberger, D., Kühl, N., & Hirschl, S. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3262138 · Cited by 766 · cited 1×
“A growing literature aims to define general machine-learning principles to encourage the development of scalable, reliable and efficient systems 160 .”
Ray, S., Crone, N. E., Niebur, E., Franaszczuk, P. J., & Hsiao, S. S. (2008) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2848-08.2008 · Cited by 722 · cited 1×
“The high-γ band of the local field potential (70–150 Hz) correlates with neuronal firing rates underneath each ECoG electrode 86,87 and captures cortical representations of acoustic and articulatory features relevant to speech 17,88,89 (Fig.”
Novel electrode technologies for neural recordings
Hong, G., & Lieber, C. M. (2019) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-019-0140-6 · Cited by 695
A somato-cognitive action network alternates with effector regions in motor cortex
Gordon, E. M., Chauvin, R. J., Van, A. N., Rajesh, A., Nielsen, A. N., Newbold, D. J., Lynch, C. J., Seider, N. A., Krimmel, S. R., Scheidter, K. M., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05964-2 · Cited by 687
Functional organization of human sensorimotor cortex for speech articulation
Bouchard, K. E., Mesgarani, N., Johnson, K., & Chang, E. F. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11911 · Cited by 686 · cited 6×
“1; Bouchard et al. 2013).”
InfluentialSelf-citationNeural recording and modulation technologies
Chen, R., Canales, A., & Anikeeva, P. (2017) · Nature Reviews Materials · doi:10.1038/natrevmats.2016.93 · Cited by 655
Promises and limitations of human intracranial electroencephalography
Parvizi, J., & Kastner, S. (2018) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-018-0108-2 · Cited by 631 · cited 2×
“Previously, data on the long-term safety and stability of ECoG primarily came from its application in epilepsy 82,90–92 , including the paddle-style surface strip electrodes with the Neuropace responsive neurostimulation system, which has demonstrated safety and signal stability for at least 9…”
Walking naturally after spinal cord injury using a brain–spine interface
Lorach, H., Galvez, A., Spagnolo, V., Martel, F., Karakas, S., Intering, N., Vat, M., Faivre, O., Harte, C., Komi, S., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06094-5 · Cited by 631
Reconstructing Speech from Human Auditory Cortex
Pasley, B. N., David, S. V., Mesgarani, N., Flinker, A., Shamma, S. A., Crone, N. E., Knight, R. T., & Chang, E. F. (2012) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001251 · Cited by 604 · cited 1×
“Neural activity in the STG encodes acoustic features — for example, recurring speech sound patterns in the mel-spectrogram — during speech perception 53,54 and may be used to reconstruct perceived speech 55,56 .”
Self-citationFailure mode analysis of silicon-based intracortical microelectrode arrays in non-human primates
Barrese, J. C., Rao, N., Paroo, K., Triebwasser, C., Vargas-Irwin, C., Franquemont, L., & Donoghue, J. P. (2013) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2560/10/6/066014 · Cited by 600 · cited 1×
“Previous demonstrations of intracortical insertion of MEAs showed injury and neuronal loss at the implantation location 99 , as well as signal instabilities contributing to signal loss and performance decline over time 100,101 .”
Neuroprosthesis for Decoding Speech in a Paralyzed Person with Anarthria
Moses, D. A., Metzger, S. L., Liu, J. R., Anumanchipalli, G. K., Makin, J. G., Sun, P. F., Chartier, J., Dougherty, M. E., Liu, P. M., Abrams, G. M., et al. (2021) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2027540 · Cited by 582 · cited 10×
“As a first approach to counter a lack of alignment between neural activity and ground-truth targets, Moses et al. 12 instructed a participant with anarthria to attempt to speak sentences word-by-word (with pauses between words).”
InfluentialSelf-citationA high-performance speech neuroprosthesis
Willett, F. R., Kunz, E. M., Fan, C., Avansino, D. T., Wilson, G. H., Choi, E. Y., Kamdar, F., Glasser, M. F., Hochberg, L. R., Druckmann, S., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06377-x · Cited by 581 · cited 17×
“MEAs typically record high-fidelity signals from a small (a few square millimetres) area of cortex.”
InfluentialFully Implanted Brain–Computer Interface in a Locked-In Patient with ALS
Vansteensel, M. J., Pels, E. G. M., Bleichner, M. G., Branco, M. P., Denison, T., Freudenburg, Z. V., Gosselaar, P., Leinders, S., Ottens, T. H., Van Den Boom, M. A., et al. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1608085 · Cited by 578 · cited 2×
“Communication neuroprostheses that decode cortical activity into attempted cursor movements 6–8 or handwriting 9 have made strides in achieving faster spelling in individuals with paralysis.”
Pandarinath, C., Nuyujukian, P., Blabe, C. H., Sorice, B. L., Saab, J., Willett, F. R., Hochberg, L. R., Shenoy, K. V., & Henderson, J. M. (2017) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.18554 · Cited by 566 · cited 2×
“Communication neuroprostheses that decode cortical activity into attempted cursor movements 6–8 or handwriting 9 have made strides in achieving faster spelling in individuals with paralysis.”
Broca aphasia: Pathologic and clinical
MOHR, J. P., PESSIN, M. S., FINKELSTEIN, S., FUNKENSTEIN, H. H., DUNCAN, G. W., & DAVIS, K. R. (1978) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.28.4.311 · Cited by 549
Mel-cepstral distance measure for objective speech quality assessment
Kubichek, R. (2002) · Proceedings of IEEE Pacific Rim Conference on Communications Computers and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/pacrim.1993.407206 · Cited by 534 · cited 1×
“It is preferred to correlation-based metrics, such as computing a Pearson correlation between ground truth and decoded acoustic wave-forms, as MCD weighs the features in the produced sound that are most perceptually relevant for conveying information 151 .”
A high-performance neuroprosthesis for speech decoding and avatar control
Metzger, S. L., Littlejohn, K. T., Silva, A. B., Moses, D. A., Seaton, M. P., Wang, R., Dougherty, M. E., Liu, J. R., Wu, P., Berger, M. A., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06443-4 · Cited by 522
Self-citationInduced electrocorticographic gamma activity during auditory perception
Crone, N. E., Boatman, D., Gordon, B., & Hao, L. (2001) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/s1388-2457(00)00545-9 · Cited by 494 · cited 3×
“The high-γ band of the local field potential (70–150 Hz) correlates with neuronal firing rates underneath each ECoG electrode 86,87 and captures cortical representations of acoustic and articulatory features relevant to speech 17,88,89 (Fig.”
Nine-year prospective efficacy and safety of brain-responsive neurostimulation for focal epilepsy
Nair, D. R., Laxer, K. D., Weber, P. B., Murro, A. M., Park, Y. D., Barkley, G. L., Smith, B. J., Gwinn, R. P., Doherty, M. J., Noe, K. H., et al. (2020) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000010154 · Cited by 490 · cited 2×
“Previously, data on the long-term safety and stability of ECoG primarily came from its application in epilepsy 82,90–92 , including the paddle-style surface strip electrodes with the Neuropace responsive neurostimulation system, which has demonstrated safety and signal stability for at least 9…”
Berthier, M. L. (2005) · Drugs & Aging · doi:10.2165/00002512-200522020-00006 · Cited by 487
Redefining the role of Broca’s area in speech
Flinker, A., Korzeniewska, A., Shestyuk, A. Y., Franaszczuk, P. J., Dronkers, N. F., Knight, R. T., & Crone, N. E. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1414491112 · Cited by 487
The locked-in syndrome : what is it like to be conscious but paralyzed and voiceless?
Laureys, S., Pellas, F., Van Eeckhout, P., Ghorbel, S., Schnakers, C., Perrin, F., Berré, J., Faymonville, M.-E., Pantke, K.-H., Damas, F., et al. (2005) · Progress in Brain Research · doi:10.1016/s0079-6123(05)50034-7 · Cited by 477 · cited 1×
“For example, in some situations, users may prefer to limit their output space of speech to single, high-utility words and/or phrases (such as ‘no’, ‘yes’, ‘thank you’, ‘not now’ or ‘bring that’) in exchange for near-perfect decoding performance 157 .”
Speech Production as State Feedback Control
Houde, J. F., & Nagarajan, S. S. (2011) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00082 · Cited by 463 · cited 1×
“Furthermore, self-perception of speech is an important component to speech-motor control 122,123 .”
Segregating Semantic from Phonological Processes during Reading
Price, C. J., Moore, C. J., Humphreys, G. W., & Wise, R. J. S. (1997) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.1997.9.6.727 · Cited by 454 · cited 1×
“The SMG is another region that may contribute to acoustic representations for speech production 64–66 (Fig.”
Semantic reconstruction of continuous language from non-invasive brain recordings
Tang, J., LeBel, A., Jain, S., & Huth, A. G. (2023) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-023-01304-9 · Cited by 442 · cited 2×
“1; Tang et al. 2023), they are not portable — with the exception of EEG — and low spatial or temporal resolution has hindered scaling decoding to larger vocabularies and longer speech segments (sentences).”
The Multiple Facets of Co-Production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom
Alford, J. (2013) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.806578 · Cited by 436
Learnable latent embeddings for joint behavioural and neural analysis
Schneider, S., Lee, J. H., & Mathis, M. W. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06031-6 · Cited by 406 · cited 1×
“One potential avenue is to leverage advancements in self-supervised learning 189 to learn latent representations that best capture behaviour-related dynamics, even when noise is present in the neural activity 121,190–194 .”
Guenther, F. H. (2016) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/10471.001.0001 · Cited by 401 · cited 2×
“…it is also vital to better understand non-direct articulatory control of speech, such as which cortical regions are important for speech planning 47,165,166 , including semantic 68,167 and phonological representations 58,168 that may be important for forming imagined or attempted speech targets.”
The Cortical Organization of Syntax
Matchin, W., & Hickok, G. (2020) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhz180 · Cited by 370
Crepe: A Convolutional Representation for Pitch Estimation
Kim, J. W., Salamon, J., Li, P., & Bello, J. P. (2018) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp.2018.8461329 · Cited by 367
Single unit recording capabilities of a 100 microelectrode array
Nordhausen, C. T., Maynard, E. M., & Normann, R. A. (1996) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/0006-8993(96)00321-6 · Cited by 358 · cited 15×
“Intracortical MEA recordings are used to measure neural activity at the level of single neurons or neuron clusters 83 .”
InfluentialOrganization of corticospinal neurons in the monkey
Murray, E. A., & Coulter, J. D. (1981) · Journal of Comparative Neurology · doi:10.1002/cne.901950212 · Cited by 344
Machine translation of cortical activity to text with an encoder–decoder framework
Makin, J. G., Moses, D. A., & Chang, E. F. (2020) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-020-0608-8 · Cited by 321 · cited 3×
“To build on this result and move beyond direct classification of words or sentences, Makin et al. 108”
Self-citationYates, A. J. (1963) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0044155 · Cited by 319
Laryngeal Motor Cortex and Control of Speech in Humans
Simonyan, K., & Horwitz, B. (2011) · The Neuroscientist · doi:10.1177/1073858410386727 · Cited by 310 · cited 1×
“Another important acoustic feature is the fundamental frequency at which the laryngeal vocal folds resonate during speech, which forms the basis of pitch and can be estimated from the acoustic waveform, using algorithms that infer the periodicity of a temporal signal 28,29 (Fig.”
A Wireless Brain-Machine Interface for Real-Time Speech Synthesis
Guenther, F. H., Brumberg, J. S., Wright, E. J., Nieto-Castanon, A., Tourville, J. A., Panko, M., Law, R., Siebert, S. A., Bartels, J. L., Andreasen, D. S., et al. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008218 · Cited by 306 · cited 1×
“…Guenther, used an intracortical neurotrophic microelectrode placed in the precentral gyrus, which allowed above-chance synthesis of vowel formants 84 and decoding of phonemes 85 ECoG electrodes are placed directly on the cortex and record local field potentials from spatially distinct neural…”
Locked-in syndrome: a review of 139 cases.
Patterson, J. R., & Grabois, M. (1986) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.17.4.758 · Cited by 303 · cited 2×
“For example, brainstem-stroke survivors 4,133,134 and individuals with ALS 135 can retain varying degrees of control over orofacial movements and vocalization.”
Brain-to-text: decoding spoken phrases from phone representations in the brain
Herff, C., Heger, D., de Pesters, A., Telaar, D., Brunner, P., Schalk, G., & Schultz, T. (2015) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2015.00217 · Cited by 297 · cited 3×
“Multiple studies have demonstrated that isolated phonemes can be decoded from neural activity 17,106,107,118 106 further demonstrated that, during continuous speech, phoneme sequences could be decoded provided that synchronized produced acoustics were available to aid model training 106 .”
Lexical Coverage of Spoken Discourse
Adolphs, S. (2003) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/24.4.425 · Cited by 285 · cited 2×
“However, lower frequency words remain an important component of natural language because they facilitate expressivity 156 .”
Large-scale neural recordings with single neuron resolution using Neuropixels probes in human cortex
Paulk, A. C., Kfir, Y., Khanna, A. R., Mustroph, M. L., Trautmann, E. M., Soper, D. J., Stavisky, S. D., Welkenhuysen, M., Dutta, B., Shenoy, K. V., et al. (2022) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-021-00997-0 · Cited by 283
Closed-Loop Decoder Adaptation Shapes Neural Plasticity for Skillful Neuroprosthetic Control
Orsborn, A. L., Moorman, H. G., Overduin, S. A., Shanechi, M. M., Dimitrov, D. F., & Carmena, J. M. (2014) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.04.048 · Cited by 280 · cited 1×
“Finally, speech decoders have yet to fully leverage paradigms of feedback-based learning that have the potential to entrain new patterns of neural activity for better control 171–174 .”
Sensory–motor transformations for speech occur bilaterally
Cogan, G. B., Thesen, T., Carlson, C., Doyle, W., Devinsky, O., & Pesaran, B. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12935 · Cited by 273
An Accurate and Rapidly Calibrating Speech Neuroprosthesis
Card, N. S., Wairagkar, M., Iacobacci, C., Hou, X., Singer-Clark, T., Willett, F. R., Kunz, E. M., Fan, C., Vahdati Nia, M., Deo, D. R., et al. (2024) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2314132 · Cited by 268
A NOTE UPON THE FARADIC STIMULATION OF THE POSTCENTRAL GYRUS IN CONSCIOUS PATIENTS.1
CUSHING, H. (1909) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/32.1.44 · Cited by 259
Binder, J. R. (2015) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000002219 · Cited by 250 · cited 1×
“…auditory feedback to one’s own vocalized speech (which may not be present for silently attempted speech ), the role of the STG during speech production is less clear, although evidence suggests that acoustic representations may also be used to form and plan targets for speech production 57,58 .”
Toward Human Parity in Conversational Speech Recognition
Xiong, W., Droppo, J., Huang, X., Seide, F., Seltzer, M. L., Stolcke, A., Yu, D., & Zweig, G. (2017) · IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing · doi:10.1109/taslp.2017.2756440 · Cited by 245 · cited 8×
“Hence, ASR-based WERs should currently be seen as complementary, but not a substitute, to human-transcribed WERs.”
InfluentialAn accurate and rapidly calibrating speech neuroprosthesis
Card, N. S., Wairagkar, M., Iacobacci, C., Hou, X., Singer-Clark, T., Willett, F. R., Kunz, E. M., Fan, C., Vahdati Nia, M., Deo, D. R., et al. (2023) · doi:10.1101/2023.12.26.23300110 · Cited by 244 · cited 10×
“In this approach, MEA activity is decoded into subword units and converted into sentences using language models; this language model output is used as a ‘pseudo-label’ to update the RNN decoding model 9,16,105 .”
InfluentialOxley, T. J., Yoo, P. E., Rind, G. S., Ronayne, S. M., Lee, C. M. S., Bird, C., Hampshire, V., Sharma, R. P., Morokoff, A., Williams, D. L., et al. (2021) · Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery · doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016862 · Cited by 243
Pei, X., Barbour, D. L., Leuthardt, E. C., & Schalk, G. (2011) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2560/8/4/046028 · Cited by 237
Current Controversies on Wernicke’s Area and its Role in Language
Binder, J. R. (2017) · Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports · doi:10.1007/s11910-017-0764-8 · Cited by 231 · cited 2×
“…auditory feedback to one’s own vocalized speech (which may not be present for silently attempted speech ), the role of the STG during speech production is less clear, although evidence suggests that acoustic representations may also be used to form and plan targets for speech production 57,58 .”
Speech synthesis from ECoG using densely connected 3D convolutional neural networks
Angrick, M., Herff, C., Mugler, E., Tate, M. C., Slutzky, M. W., Krusienski, D. J., & Schultz, T. (2019) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ab0c59 · Cited by 225 · cited 3×
“This decoding model can be trained to transform neural activity into text, audible speech or orofacial movements. a , Recording of neural activity can be achieved using different neural interfaces such as electrocorticography (ECoG), microelectrode array (MEA) and stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG).”
Real-time decoding of question-and-answer speech dialogue using human cortical activity
Moses, D. A., Leonard, M. K., Makin, J. G., & Chang, E. F. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10994-4 · Cited by 224 · cited 2×
“Importantly, these large language models have the capacity to integrate conversational context into their predictions, which has been shown to improve neural-decoding pipelines 117 .”
Self-citationTowards reconstructing intelligible speech from the human auditory cortex
Akbari, H., Khalighinejad, B., Herrero, J. L., Mehta, A. D., & Mesgarani, N. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-37359-z · Cited by 221 · cited 1×
“Neural activity in the STG encodes acoustic features — for example, recurring speech sound patterns in the mel-spectrogram — during speech perception 53,54 and may be used to reconstruct perceived speech 55,56 .”
New neural activity patterns emerge with long-term learning
Oby, E. R., Golub, M. D., Hennig, J. A., Degenhart, A. D., Tyler-Kabara, E. C., Yu, B. M., Chase, S. M., & Batista, A. P. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1820296116 · Cited by 221 · cited 1×
“Finally, speech decoders have yet to fully leverage paradigms of feedback-based learning that have the potential to entrain new patterns of neural activity for better control 171–174 .”
Life can be worth living in locked-in syndrome
Lulé, D., Zickler, C., Häcker, S., Bruno, M. A., Demertzi, A., Pellas, F., Laureys, S., & Kübler, A. (2009) · Progress in Brain Research · doi:10.1016/s0079-6123(09)17723-3 · Cited by 217
Huggins, J. E., Wren, P. A., & Gruis, K. L. (2011) · Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis · doi:10.3109/17482968.2011.572978 · Cited by 215 · cited 2×
“As long and recurring training periods for speech neuroprostheses might discourage long-term use 158,159 , it is essential to develop decoders that are stable over time or can be quickly recalibrated 102,104,105 to avoid dedicated and high-effort re-training periods inconveniencing users.”
Degenhart, A. D., Bishop, W. E., Oby, E. R., Tyler-Kabara, E. C., Chase, S. M., Batista, A. P., & Yu, B. M. (2020) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-020-0542-9 · Cited by 212 · cited 2×
“One line of work involves developing models that learn an underlying manifold (low-dimensional spaces that capture neural population dynamics) structure for a given behaviour 103,104,121 , which can then be used to stabilize MEA activity over time.”
Imagined speech can be decoded from low- and cross-frequency intracranial EEG features
Proix, T., Delgado Saa, J., Christen, A., Martin, S., Pasley, B. N., Knight, R. T., Tian, X., Poeppel, D., Doyle, W. K., Devinsky, O., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27725-3 · Cited by 212
Encoding of Articulatory Kinematic Trajectories in Human Speech Sensorimotor Cortex
Chartier, J., Anumanchipalli, G. K., Johnson, K., & Chang, E. F. (2018) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2018.04.031 · Cited by 208
Self-citationDysarthria in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A review
Tomik, B., & Guiloff, R. J. (2010) · Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis · doi:10.3109/17482960802379004 · Cited by 201 · cited 3×
“For example, brainstem-stroke survivors 4,133,134 and individuals with ALS 135 can retain varying degrees of control over orofacial movements and vocalization.”
Decoding spectrotemporal features of overt and covert speech from the human cortex
Martin, S., Brunner, P., Holdgraf, C., Heinze, H.-J., Crone, N. E., Rieger, J., Schalk, G., Knight, R. T., & Pasley, B. N. (2014) · Frontiers in Neuroengineering · doi:10.3389/fneng.2014.00014 · Cited by 200
YourTTS: Towards Zero-Shot Multi-Speaker TTS and Zero-Shot Voice Conversion for everyone
Casanova, E., Weber, J., Shulby, C., Junior, A. C., Gölge, E., & Ponti, M. A. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.02418 · Cited by 200 · cited 1×
“Voice-conversion models require as little as 3 s of recorded speech 126 ; however, larger personalized training datasets can be leveraged if the individual has additional pre-injury audio recordings.”
Mugler, E. M., Patton, J. L., Flint, R. D., Wright, Z. A., Schuele, S. U., Rosenow, J., Shih, J. J., Krusienski, D. J., & Slutzky, M. W. (2014) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2560/11/3/035015 · Cited by 192 · cited 2×
“Multiple studies have demonstrated that isolated phonemes can be decoded from neural activity 17,106,107,118 106 further demonstrated that, during continuous speech, phoneme sequences could be decoded provided that synchronized produced acoustics were available to aid model training 106 .”
The Control of Vocal Pitch in Human Laryngeal Motor Cortex
Dichter, B. K., Breshears, J. D., Leonard, M. K., & Chang, E. F. (2018) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2018.05.016 · Cited by 183 · cited 3×
“Dichter et al. 44 defined dorsal and ventral laryngeal cortical representations, with the dorsal one controlling vocal pitch for prosodic intonation in English 44 and, interestingly, lexical tone production in Mandarin 46 .”
Self-citationMcCAWLEY, J. D. (1978) · Tone · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-267350-4.50009-1 · Cited by 181
Central nervous system control of the laryngeal muscles in humans
Ludlow, C. L. (2005) · Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.resp.2005.04.015 · Cited by 175
Brain leaks and consumer neurotechnology
Ienca, M., Haselager, P., & Emanuel, E. (2018) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.4240 · Cited by 175 · cited 1×
“In addition to mind reading, the rapid expansion of speech neuroprostheses has raised data-related ethical concerns over ownership 219 , leaks 220 and privacy 221 of one’s neural activity.”
Word pair classification during imagined speech using direct brain recordings
Martin, S., Brunner, P., Iturrate, I., Millán, J. D. R., Schalk, G., Knight, R. T., & Pasley, B. N. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep25803 · Cited by 171 · cited 1×
“Along these lines, when able speakers are instructed to imagine speaking or hearing a word, neural activity in the STG can be used to decode those words with above-chance accuracy 59–63 .”
Hand Knob Area of Premotor Cortex Represents the Whole Body in a Compositional Way
Willett, F. R., Deo, D. R., Avansino, D. T., Rezaii, P., Hochberg, L. R., Henderson, J. M., & Shenoy, K. V. (2020) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.043 · Cited by 171 · cited 2×
“1 15,51,52 .”
Recovery from aphasia in the first year after stroke
Wilson, S. M., Entrup, J. L., Schneck, S. M., Onuscheck, C. F., Levy, D. F., Rahman, M., Willey, E., Casilio, M., Yen, M., Brito, A. C., et al. (2022) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awac129 · Cited by 163
Decoding Covert Speech From EEG-A Comprehensive Review
Panachakel, J. T., & Ramakrishnan, A. G. (2021) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2021.642251 · Cited by 156 · cited 1×
“Although these non-invasive techniques have facilitated decoding of limited vocabularies of imagined words, syllables and speech sounds 75,76 and reconstruction of semantic content of speech 68 (Fig.”
Metzger, S. L., Liu, J. R., Moses, D. A., Dougherty, M. E., Seaton, M. P., Littlejohn, K. T., Chartier, J., Anumanchipalli, G. K., Tu-Chan, A., Ganguly, K., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-33611-3 · Cited by 153 · cited 5×
“learning, either between individuals 108 or different types of speech within the same individual 120 , may also be used to expedite decoder training.”
InfluentialSelf-citationThe origins of the vocal brain in humans
Belyk, M., & Brown, S. (2017) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.03.014 · Cited by 144 · cited 1×
“Another important acoustic feature is the fundamental frequency at which the laryngeal vocal folds resonate during speech, which forms the basis of pitch and can be estimated from the acoustic waveform, using algorithms that infer the periodicity of a temporal signal 28,29 (Fig.”
Modality-Independent Decoding of Semantic Information from the Human Brain
Simanova, I., Hagoort, P., Oostenveld, R., & van Gerven, M. A. J. (2014) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhs324 · Cited by 138 · cited 1×
“Along these lines, when able speakers are instructed to imagine speaking or hearing a word, neural activity in the STG can be used to decode those words with above-chance accuracy 59–63 .”
Clinical applications of penetrating neural interfaces and Utah Electrode Array technologies
Normann, R. A., & Fernandez, E. (2016) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2560/13/6/061003 · Cited by 135
The somatosensory cortex receives information about motor output
Umeda, T., Isa, T., & Nishimura, Y. (2019) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaw5388 · Cited by 133 · cited 1×
“The postcentral gyrus, which is primarily responsible for encoding somatosensory information, is also somatotopically organized by body area; however, a growing body of work points to additional postcentral gyrus involvement in motor control 40–42 .”
Plug-and-play control of a brain–computer interface through neural map stabilization
Silversmith, D. B., Abiri, R., Hardy, N. F., Natraj, N., Tu-Chan, A., Chang, E. F., & Ganguly, K. (2021) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-020-0662-5 · Cited by 126 · cited 1×
“Despite this, durable stability has enabled ECoG-based neuroprostheses without the need for daily calibration by the user 12,14,94,95 .”
Self-citationHigh-density single-unit human cortical recordings using the Neuropixels probe
Chung, J. E., Sellers, K. K., Leonard, M. K., Gwilliams, L., Xu, D., Dougherty, M. E., Kharazia, V., Metzger, S. L., Welkenhuysen, M., Dutta, B., et al. (2022) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2022.05.007 · Cited by 126
Self-citationDecoding spoken phonemes from sensorimotor cortex with high-density ECoG grids
Ramsey, N. F., Salari, E., Aarnoutse, E. J., Vansteensel, M. J., Bleichner, M. G., & Freudenburg, Z. V. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.10.011 · Cited by 124 · cited 1×
“Multiple studies have demonstrated that isolated phonemes can be decoded from neural activity 17,106,107,118 106 further demonstrated that, during continuous speech, phoneme sequences could be decoded provided that synchronized produced acoustics were available to aid model training 106 .”
The Argo: a high channel count recording system for neural recording in vivo
Sahasrabuddhe, K., Khan, A. A., Singh, A. P., Stern, T. M., Ng, Y., Tadić, A., Orel, P., LaReau, C., Pouzzner, D., Nishimura, K., et al. (2021) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/abd0ce · Cited by 124
Basilakos, A., Rorden, C., Bonilha, L., Moser, D., & Fridriksson, J. (2015) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.115.009211 · Cited by 120
Implantable brain machine interfaces: first-in-human studies, technology challenges and trends
Rapeaux, A. B., & Constandinou, T. G. (2021) · Current Opinion in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2021.10.001 · Cited by 119 · cited 1×
“To this end, one promising research avenue involves developing recording technologies that can be wireless, portable and fully implanted 6,198–203 .”
Herff, C., Diener, L., Angrick, M., Mugler, E., Tate, M. C., Goldrick, M. A., Krusienski, D. J., Slutzky, M. W., & Schultz, T. (2019) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.01267 · Cited by 118 · cited 2×
“Initial work to synthesize speech from neural activity in able speakers has leveraged a few approaches 110–112 , 125 .”
Decoding Inner Speech Using Electrocorticography: Progress and Challenges Toward a Speech Prosthesis
Martin, S., Iturrate, I., Millán, J. D. R., Knight, R. T., & Pasley, B. N. (2018) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2018.00422 · Cited by 115 · cited 1×
“In able speakers, single-word classification has been highly successful using predefined and restricted vocabularies 115,116 .”
Brumberg (2011) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2011.00065 · Cited by 114 · cited 1×
“…used an intracortical neurotrophic microelectrode placed in the precentral gyrus, which allowed above-chance synthesis of vowel formants 84 and decoding of phonemes 85 ECoG electrodes are placed directly on the cortex and record local field potentials from spatially distinct neural populations.”
The RNS System: brain-responsive neurostimulation for the treatment of epilepsy
Jarosiewicz, B., & Morrell, M. J. (2020) · Expert Review of Medical Devices · doi:10.1080/17434440.2019.1683445 · Cited by 113
A Neurosurgical Functional Dissection of the Middle Precentral Gyrus during Speech Production
Silva, A. B., Liu, J. R., Zhao, L., Levy, D. F., Scott, T. L., & Chang, E. F. (2022) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1614-22.2022 · Cited by 111
Self-citationAccuracy of the NDI Wave Speech Research System
Berry, J. (2011) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0226 · Cited by 110
Koch Fager, S., Fried-Oken, M., Jakobs, T., & Beukelman, D. R. (2019) · Augmentative and Alternative Communication · doi:10.1080/07434618.2018.1556730 · Cited by 107 · cited 1×
“Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices leverage residual voluntary motor function, such as eye or head movements, to allow individuals with paralysis to spell out intended messages, albeit through slow and effortful interfaces 5 .”
A State-of-the-Art Review of EEG-Based Imagined Speech Decoding
Lopez-Bernal, D., Balderas, D., Ponce, P., & Molina, A. (2022) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2022.867281 · Cited by 107 · cited 1×
“Although these non-invasive techniques have facilitated decoding of limited vocabularies of imagined words, syllables and speech sounds 75,76 and reconstruction of semantic content of speech 68 (Fig.”
A speech planning network for interactive language use
Castellucci, G. A., Kovach, C. K., Howard, M. A., Greenlee, J. D. W., & Long, M. A. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04270-z · Cited by 106 · cited 1×
“…it is also vital to better understand non-direct articulatory control of speech, such as which cortical regions are important for speech planning 47,165,166 , including semantic 68,167 and phonological representations 58,168 that may be important for forming imagined or attempted speech targets.”
Damage to the Left Precentral Gyrus Is Associated With Apraxia of Speech in Acute Stroke
Itabashi, R., Nishio, Y., Kataoka, Y., Yazawa, Y., Furui, E., Matsuda, M., & Mori, E. (2016) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.115.010402 · Cited by 105
Neural ensemble dynamics in dorsal motor cortex during speech in people with paralysis
Stavisky, S. D., Willett, F. R., Wilson, G. H., Murphy, B. A., Rezaii, P., Avansino, D. T., Memberg, W. D., Miller, J. P., Kirsch, R. F., Hochberg, L. R., et al. (2019) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.46015 · Cited by 105 · cited 6×
“In addition, articulatory features may be useful as a standalone output space for both speech and non-speech orofacial gestures 14,52,113,114 (Fig.”
InfluentialLatent Factors and Dynamics in Motor Cortex and Their Application to Brain–Machine Interfaces
Pandarinath, C., Ames, K. C., Russo, A. A., Farshchian, A., Miller, L. E., Dyer, E. L., & Kao, J. C. (2018) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1669-18.2018 · Cited by 103 · cited 2×
“One line of work involves developing models that learn an underlying manifold (low-dimensional spaces that capture neural population dynamics) structure for a given behaviour 103,104,121 , which can then be used to stabilize MEA activity over time.”
Decoding spoken English from intracortical electrode arrays in dorsal precentral gyrus
Wilson, G. H., Stavisky, S. D., Willett, F. R., Avansino, D. T., Kelemen, J. N., Hochberg, L. R., Henderson, J. M., Druckmann, S., & Shenoy, K. V. (2020) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/abbfef · Cited by 103
Angrick, M., Luo, S., Rabbani, Q., Candrea, D. N., Shah, S., Milsap, G., Anderson, W. S., Gordon, C. R., Rosenblatt, K. R., Clawson, L., et al. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-60277-2 · Cited by 103
Luu, T. P., Nakagome, S., He, Y., & Contreras-Vidal, J. L. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-09187-0 · Cited by 101
Urban, P. P., Rolke, R., Wicht, S., Keilmann, A., Stoeter, P., Hopf, H. C., & Dieterich, M. (2006) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awh708 · Cited by 100 · cited 1×
“Finally, dysarthria may be caused by injury to the motor cortex itself, referred to as cortical anarthria or dysarthria 204,205 .”
Degenhart, A. D., Eles, J. R., Dum, R. P., Mischel, J., Smalianchuk, I., Endler, B., Ashmore, R. C., Tyler‐Kabara, E. C., Hatsopoulos, N. G., Wang, W., et al. (2016) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2560/13/4/046019 · Cited by 96 · cited 1×
“Although ECoG electrodes do not penetrate the cortex, they may be associated with subdural fibrosis 93 with minimal or no cortical injury.”
Mugler, E. M., Tate, M. C., Livescu, K., Templer, J. W., Goldrick, M. A., & Slutzky, M. W. (2018) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1206-18.2018 · Cited by 96 · cited 2×
“Subsequent work discovered that SMC populations encode articulatory kinematic trajectories and vocal-tract configurations 43 during continuous speech 24,39,44,45 24 discovered that the SMC encodes a large variety of low-dimensional movement trajectories of the vocal tract (also called gestures),…”
Angrick, M., Luo, S., Rabbani, Q., Candrea, D. N., Shah, S., Milsap, G. W., Anderson, W. S., Gordon, C. R., Rosenblatt, K. R., Clawson, L., et al. (2023) · doi:10.1101/2023.06.30.23291352 · Cited by 95 · cited 5×
“1; Angrick et al. 2023; and Supplementary Table 1).”
InfluentialStabilizing brain-computer interfaces through alignment of latent dynamics
Karpowicz, B. M., Ali, Y. H., Wimalasena, L. N., Sedler, A. R., Keshtkaran, M. R., Bodkin, K. L., Ma, X., Rubin, D. B., Williams, Z. M., Cash, S. S., et al. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-59652-y · Cited by 94
Explant Analysis of Utah Electrode Arrays Implanted in Human Cortex for Brain-Computer-Interfaces
Woeppel, K., Hughes, C., Herrera, A. J., Eles, J. R., Tyler-Kabara, E. C., Gaunt, R. A., Collinger, J. L., & Cui, X. T. (2021) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2021.759711 · Cited by 90 · cited 1×
“Previous demonstrations of intracortical insertion of MEAs showed injury and neuronal loss at the implantation location 99 , as well as signal instabilities contributing to signal loss and performance decline over time 100,101 .”
Luo, S., Angrick, M., Coogan, C., Candrea, D. N., Wyse‐Sookoo, K., Shah, S., Rabbani, Q., Milsap, G. W., Weiss, A. R., Anderson, W. S., et al. (2023) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.202304853 · Cited by 90 · cited 2×
“Despite this, durable stability has enabled ECoG-based neuroprostheses without the need for daily calibration by the user 12,14,94,95 .”
Mapping Human Laryngeal Motor Cortex during Vocalization
Eichert, N., Papp, D., Mars, R. B., & Watkins, K. E. (2020) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhaa182 · Cited by 89 · cited 4×
“Phonemes are defined as the smallest perceptually distinct units of sound that form a language (39 unstressed phonemes exist in English) 32,33 .”
InfluentialFunctional architecture of the motor homunculus detected by electrostimulation
Roux, F., Niare, M., Charni, S., Giussani, C., & Durand, J. (2020) · The Journal of Physiology · doi:10.1113/jp280156 · Cited by 87
Keshtkaran, M. R., Sedler, A. R., Chowdhury, R. H., Tandon, R., Basrai, D., Nguyen, S. L., Sohn, H., Jazayeri, M., Miller, L. E., & Pandarinath, C. (2022) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-022-01675-0 · Cited by 84
Verbal communication impacts quality of life in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
Felgoise, S. H., Zaccheo, V., Duff, J., & Simmons, Z. (2016) · Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration · doi:10.3109/21678421.2015.1125499 · Cited by 81 · cited 1×
“Losing the ability to speak drastically hinders communication and, as a result, substantially reduces quality of life 1 .”
Interim Safety Profile From the Feasibility Study of the BrainGate Neural Interface System
Rubin, D. B., Ajiboye, A. B., Barefoot, L., Bowker, M., Cash, S. S., Chen, D., Donoghue, J. P., Eskandar, E. N., Friehs, G., Grant, C., et al. (2023) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000201707 · Cited by 81 · cited 2×
“83)) cortical regions on the anterior pre-central gyrus 15,16,52,98 .”
Brain2Char: a deep architecture for decoding text from brain recordings
Sun, P., Anumanchipalli, G. K., & Chang, E. F. (2020) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/abc742 · Cited by 77 · cited 6×
“…loss 119 , which scores the loss between predictions from an input sequence (such as neural activity) and an output sequence (such as linguistic subunits) without requiring their alignment, Sun et al. 109 trained an RNN to decode character sequences from brain activity during sentence production.”
InfluentialSelf-citationRabut, C., Norman, S. L., Griggs, W. S., Russin, J. J., Jann, K., Christopoulos, V., Liu, C., Andersen, R. A., & Shapiro, M. G. (2023) · doi:10.1101/2023.06.14.544094 · Cited by 76 · cited 1×
“Although efforts to mitigate these limitations and increase portability are ongoing 77–80 , this Review focuses on invasive recording techniques that have demonstrated spatiotemporal resolution sufficient to enable high-performance speech decoding.”
Rabut, C., Norman, S. L., Griggs, W. S., Russin, J. J., Jann, K., Christopoulos, V., Liu, C. Y., Andersen, R. A., & Shapiro, M. G. (2024) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.adj3143 · Cited by 76
Preservation of hand movement representation in the sensorimotor areas of amputees
Bruurmijn, M. L. C. M., Pereboom, I. P. L., Vansteensel, M. J., Raemaekers, M. A. H., & Ramsey, N. F. (2017) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awx274 · Cited by 75 · cited 1×
“which may mirror previous investigations of somatotopy in upper limb representations 8,162–164 .”
Modeling the Role of Sensory Feedback in Speech Motor Control and Learning
Parrell, B., & Houde, J. (2019) · Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2019_jslhr-s-csmc7-18-0127 · Cited by 75
Advocating for neurodata privacy and neurotechnology regulation
Yuste, R. (2023) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/s41596-023-00873-0 · Cited by 75
High-resolution neural recordings improve the accuracy of speech decoding
Duraivel, S., Rahimpour, S., Chiang, C.-H., Trumpis, M., Wang, C., Barth, K., Harward, S. C., Lad, S. P., Friedman, A. H., Southwell, D. G., et al. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-42555-1 · Cited by 75 · cited 1×
“For example, higher-density cortical sampling — via an increased number of surface or penetrating electrodes — has been shown to increase the performance of decoding models 14–16, 175 , 176 .”
Wagner, P., Beskow, J., Betz, S., Edlund, J., Gustafson, J., Eje Henter, G., Le Maguer, S., Malisz, Z., Székely, É., Tånnander, C., et al. (2019) · 10th ISCA Workshop on Speech Synthesis (SSW 10) · doi:10.21437/ssw.2019-19 · Cited by 74 · cited 1×
“The performance of TTS systems is often described using mel-cepstral distortion (MCD) and open-ended human-transcribed WER 149,150 .”
Stabilizing brain-computer interfaces through alignment of latent dynamics
Karpowicz, B. M., Ali, Y. H., Wimalasena, L. N., Sedler, A. R., Keshtkaran, M. R., Bodkin, K., Ma, X., Miller, L. E., & Pandarinath, C. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.04.06.487388 · Cited by 71
A deep recurrent approach for acoustic-to-articulatory inversion
Liu, P., Yu, Q., Wu, Z., Kang, S., Meng, H. M. L., & Cai, L. (2015) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp.2015.7178812 · Cited by 66 · cited 1×
“A complementary approach to defining discrete vocal-tract configurations is to measure the location of individual vocal-tract articulators continuously over time, using imaging techniques and biosensors 22 or inference from the produced sound 23–26 (Fig.”
Rainey, S., Martin, S., Christen, A., Mégevand, P., & Fourneret, E. (2020) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00218-0 · Cited by 65 · cited 1×
“Together, imagined, silently attempted and attempted speech reflect intended speech from the participant, which is distinct from internal monologues or thoughts 139 .”
Cajigas, I., Davis, K., Meschede-Krasa, B., Prins, N. W., Gallo, S., Naeem, J., Palermo, A. E., Wilson, A., Guerra, S., Parks, B. A., et al. (2021) · Brain Communications · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcab248 · Cited by 65
Carey, D., Krishnan, S., Callaghan, M. F., Sereno, M. I., & Dick, F. (2017) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhw393 · Cited by 63 · cited 1×
“Located directly dorsal to this area is the region of cortex involved in controlling hand movements 18,39 (Fig.”
Long-term recording reliability of liquid crystal polymer µ ECoG arrays
Woods, V., Trumpis, M., Bent, B., Palopoli-Trojani, K., Chiang, C.-H., Wang, C., Yu, C., Insanally, M. N., Froemke, R. C., & Viventi, J. (2018) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/aae39d · Cited by 63
Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication: Preferences of Individuals With Locked-in Syndrome
Branco, M. P., Pels, E. G. M., Sars, R. H., Aarnoutse, E. J., Ramsey, N. F., Vansteensel, M. J., & Nijboer, F. (2021) · Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair · doi:10.1177/1545968321989331 · Cited by 61 · cited 2×
“For example, brainstem-stroke survivors 4,133,134 and individuals with ALS 135 can retain varying degrees of control over orofacial movements and vocalization.”
A motor association area in the depths of the central sulcus
Jensen, M. A., Huang, H., Valencia, G. O., Klassen, B. T., van den Boom, M. A., Kaufmann, T. J., Schalk, G., Brunner, P., Worrell, G. A., Hermes, D., et al. (2023) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-023-01346-z · Cited by 61 · cited 1×
“Years of work focused on mapping premotor and primary motor representations on the precentral gyrus and central sulcus, revealing a somatotopic organization in which neural control of muscle groups is represented along the ventral–dorsal axis 34–38 .”
Ozker, M., Doyle, W., Devinsky, O., & Flinker, A. (2022) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001493 · Cited by 59 · cited 1×
“…it is also vital to better understand non-direct articulatory control of speech, such as which cortical regions are important for speech planning 47,165,166 , including semantic 68,167 and phonological representations 58,168 that may be important for forming imagined or attempted speech targets.”
Pure Apraxia of Speech After Resection Based in the Posterior Middle Frontal Gyrus
Chang, E. F., Kurteff, G., Andrews, J. P., Briggs, R. G., Conner, A. K., Battiste, J. D., & Sughrue, M. E. (2020) · Neurosurgery · doi:10.1093/neuros/nyaa002 · Cited by 58
Self-citationFunctional magnetic resonance imaging and the brain: A brief review
Chow, M. S., Wu, S. L., Webb, S. E., Gluskin, K., & Yew, D. (2017) · World Journal of Radiology · doi:10.4329/wjr.v9.i1.5 · Cited by 53 · cited 1×
“Functional MRI, by contrast, has higher spatial specificity but lower temporal resolution than EEG and MEG as it measures changes in cerebral blood flow as a correlate of neural activity 74 .”
Degenhart, A. D., Hiremath, S. V., Yang, Y., Foldes, S. T., Collinger, J. L., Boninger, M. L., Tyler‐Kabara, E. C., & Wang, W. (2017) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/aa9bfb · Cited by 53 · cited 1×
“which may mirror previous investigations of somatotopy in upper limb representations 8,162–164 .”
Kwon, J., Shin, J., & Im, C.-H. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0230491 · Cited by 53
Chang, E. F., Kurteff, G., & Wilson, S. M. (2018) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01215 · Cited by 52 · cited 1×
“Converging evidence suggests that Broca’s area, although classically posited as critical for speech production, may not have a critical role in speech articulation 15,69,70 but may instead be involved in word retrieval and grammar 71,72 , although this is an active research area 71 .”
Self-citationBrain-Computer Interface and Motor Imagery Training: The Role of Visual Feedback and Embodiment
Alimardani, M., Nishio, S., & Ishiguro, H. (2018) · Evolving BCI Therapy - Engaging Brain State Dynamics · doi:10.5772/intechopen.78695 · Cited by 49
Patel, P. R., Welle, E. J., Letner, J. G., Shen, H., Bullard, A. J., Caldwell, C. M., Vega-Medina, A., Richie, J. M., Thayer, H. E., Patil, P. G., et al. (2023) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/acab86 · Cited by 49 · cited 1×
“Previous demonstrations of intracortical insertion of MEAs showed injury and neuronal loss at the implantation location 99 , as well as signal instabilities contributing to signal loss and performance decline over time 100,101 .”
Matsushita, K., Hirata, M., Suzuki, T., Ando, H., Yoshida, T., Ota, Y., Satō, F., Morris, S., Sugata, H., Goto, T., et al. (2018) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2018.00511 · Cited by 48
Hierarchy of speech-driven spectrotemporal receptive fields in human auditory cortex
Venezia, J. H., Thurman, S. M., Richards, V. M., & Hickok, G. (2019) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.11.049 · Cited by 47 · cited 1×
“Neural activity in the STG encodes acoustic features — for example, recurring speech sound patterns in the mel-spectrogram — during speech perception 53,54 and may be used to reconstruct perceived speech 55,56 .”
Peters, B., Bieker, G., Heckman, S. M., Huggins, J. E., Wolf, C., Zeitlin, D., & Fried-Oken, M. (2015) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2014.03.037 · Cited by 44 · cited 2×
“As long and recurring training periods for speech neuroprostheses might discourage long-term use 158,159 , it is essential to develop decoders that are stable over time or can be quickly recalibrated 102,104,105 to avoid dedicated and high-effort re-training periods inconveniencing users.”
Finger somatotopy is preserved after tetraplegia but deteriorates over time
Kikkert, S., Pfyffer, D., Verling, M., Freund, P., & Wenderoth, N. (2021) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.67713 · Cited by 44
The spatiotemporal dynamics of semantic integration in the human brain
Murphy, E., Forseth, K. J., Donos, C., Snyder, K. M., Rollo, P. S., & Tandon, N. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-42087-8 · Cited by 44 · cited 1×
“…it is also vital to better understand non-direct articulatory control of speech, such as which cortical regions are important for speech planning 47,165,166 , including semantic 68,167 and phonological representations 58,168 that may be important for forming imagined or attempted speech targets.”
High-density mapping of primate digit representations with a 1152-channel µECoG array
Kaiju, T., Inoue, M., Hirata, M., & Suzuki, T. (2021) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/abe245 · Cited by 42
Direct Speech Reconstruction from Sensorimotor Brain Activity with Optimized Deep Learning Models
Berezutskaya, J., Freudenburg, Z. V., Vansteensel, M. J., Aarnoutse, E. J., Ramsey, N. F., & van Gerven, M. A. J. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.08.02.502503 · Cited by 42
Direct speech reconstruction from sensorimotor brain activity with optimized deep learning models
Berezutskaya, J., Freudenburg, Z. V., Vansteensel, M. J., Aarnoutse, E. J., Ramsey, N. F., & van Gerven, M. A. J. (2023) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ace8be · Cited by 42 · cited 1×
“One potential avenue is to leverage advancements in self-supervised learning 189 to learn latent representations that best capture behaviour-related dynamics, even when noise is present in the neural activity 121,190–194 .”
The effects of word prediction on communication rate for AAC
Trnka, K., Yarrington, D., McCaw, J., McCoy, K. F., & Pennington, C. (2007) · Human Language Technologies 2007: The Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics; Companion Volume, Short Papers on XX - NAACL '07 · doi:10.3115/1614108.1614152 · Cited by 41 · cited 1×
“146–148).”
Unsupervised speaker adaptation for speaker independent acoustic to articulatory speech inversion
Sivaraman, G., Mitra, V., Nam, H., Tiede, M., & Espy-Wilson, C. (2019) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.5116130 · Cited by 38
Directional information from neuronal ensembles in the primate orofacial sensorimotor cortex
Arce, F. I., Lee, J.-C., Ross, C. F., Sessle, B. J., & Hatsopoulos, N. G. (2013) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00144.2013 · Cited by 37 · cited 1×
“The postcentral gyrus, which is primarily responsible for encoding somatosensory information, is also somatotopically organized by body area; however, a growing body of work points to additional postcentral gyrus involvement in motor control 40–42 .”
Kamal, A. H., Kirkland, K. B., Meier, D. E., Morgan, T. S., Nelson, E. C., & Pantilat, S. Z. (2017) · Journal of Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1089/jpm.2017.0354 · Cited by 37 · cited 1×
“Value-aligned development, in which innovation is guided by user input, has proven successful in many health-care fields by creating more sustainable and efficient co-designed systems 222–224 .”
Demonstration of a portable intracortical brain-computer interface
Weiss, J. M., Gaunt, R. A., Franklin, R. K., Boninger, M. L., & Collinger, J. L. (2019) · Brain-Computer Interfaces · doi:10.1080/2326263x.2019.1709260 · Cited by 37
Dissociation of Broca’s area from Broca’s aphasia in patients undergoing neurosurgical resections
Andrews, J. P., Cahn, N., Speidel, B. A., Chung, J. E., Levy, D. F., Wilson, S. M., Berger, M. S., & Chang, E. F. (2023) · Journal of Neurosurgery · doi:10.3171/2022.6.jns2297 · Cited by 37 · cited 1×
“Converging evidence suggests that Broca’s area, although classically posited as critical for speech production, may not have a critical role in speech articulation 15,69,70 but may instead be involved in word retrieval and grammar 71,72 , although this is an active research area 71 .”
Self-citationToward a Speech Neuroprosthesis
Chang, E. F., & Anumanchipalli, G. K. (2020) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2019.19813 · Cited by 35 · cited 2×
“Able speakers often speak at rates of around 150 WPM during conversational speech 10 ; however, for individuals with vocal-tract paralysis, their maximal rate of attempted speech can vary considerably and may depend on their residual articulatory capacities and degree of comfort 4,133,134 .”
Self-citationPure dysarthria due to small cortical stroke
Kim, J. S., Kwon, S. U., & Lee, T. G. (2003) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000055930.28954.e9 · Cited by 34
Pels, E. G. M., Aarnoutse, E. J., Ramsey, N. F., & Vansteensel, M. J. (2017) · Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair · doi:10.1177/1545968317714577 · Cited by 33 · cited 3×
“For example, brainstem-stroke survivors 4,133,134 and individuals with ALS 135 can retain varying degrees of control over orofacial movements and vocalization.”
Effect of window size on rate of communication in a lexical prediction AAC system
Venkatagiri, H. (1994) · Augmentative and Alternative Communication · doi:10.1080/07434619412331276810 · Cited by 31
The Layer 7 Cortical Interface: A Scalable and Minimally Invasive Brain–Computer Interface Platform
Hettick, M., Ho, E., Poole, A. J., Monge, M., Papageorgiou, D., Takahashi, K., LaMarca, M., Trietsch, D., Reed, K., Murphy, M., et al. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.01.02.474656 · Cited by 31
Sun, J., Barth, K., Qiao, S., Chiang, C.-H., Wang, C., Rahimpour, S., Trumpis, M., Duraivel, S., Dubey, A., Wingel, K. E., et al. (2022) · Brain Communications · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcac122 · Cited by 31
The functional differentiation of brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) and its ethical implications
Sun, X.-Y., & Ye, B. (2023) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-023-02419-x · Cited by 29 · cited 1×
“In addition to mind reading, the rapid expansion of speech neuroprostheses has raised data-related ethical concerns over ownership 219 , leaks 220 and privacy 221 of one’s neural activity.”
Electrocorticography and functional mapping
(2019) · Handbook of Clinical Neurology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-64032-1.00020-5 · Cited by 28
The Emergence of Functional Ultrasound for Noninvasive Brain–Computer Interface
Zheng, H., Niu, L., Qiu, W., Liang, D., Long, X., Li, G., Liu, Z., & Meng, L. (2023) · Research · doi:10.34133/research.0200 · Cited by 27
Classification of Articulator Movements and Movement Direction from Sensorimotor Cortex Activity
Salari, E., Freudenburg, Z. V., Branco, M. P., Aarnoutse, E. J., Vansteensel, M. J., & Ramsey, N. F. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-50834-5 · Cited by 26 · cited 2×
“In addition, articulatory features may be useful as a standalone output space for both speech and non-speech orofacial gestures 14,52,113,114 (Fig.”
Neural control of lexical tone production in human laryngeal motor cortex
Lu, J., Li, Y., Zhao, Z., Liu, Y., Zhu, Y., Mao, Y., Wu, J., & Chang, E. F. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-42175-9 · Cited by 26 · cited 2×
“In tonal languages, such as Mandarin, the meaning of individual words depends on their associated pitch contour (lexical tone) 30 .”
Self-citationSynthesizing Speech by Decoding Intracortical Neural Activity from Dorsal Motor Cortex
Wairagkar, M., Hochberg, L. R., Brandman, D. M., & Stavisky, S. D. (2023) · International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering · doi:10.1109/ner52421.2023.10123880 · Cited by 25 · cited 1×
“Initial work to synthesize speech from neural activity in able speakers has leveraged a few approaches 110–112 , 125 .”
Statistical Patterns in Written Language
Zanette, D. H. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.3336 · Cited by 25
Operation of a P300-based brain-computer interface in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Utsumi, K., Takano, K., Okahara, Y., Komori, T., Onodera, O., & Kansaku, K. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-20125-6 · Cited by 24
Representation Learning Using Convolution Neural Network for Acoustic-to-articulatory Inversion
Illa, A., & Ghosh, P. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp.2019.8682506 · Cited by 24
Peters, B., O’Brien, K., & Fried-Oken, M. B. (2022) · Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/17483107.2022.2149866 · Cited by 24 · cited 1×
“In certain cases, individuals could create voice banks of themselves speaking defined lists of natural sentences, which might be particularly relevant for neurodegenerative diseases, such as ALS, in which people anticipate losing the ability to speak in the near future 127 .”
Deep Speech Synthesis from Articulatory Representations
Wu, P., Watanabe, S., Goldstein, L., Black, A. W., & Anumanchipalli, G. K. (2022) · Interspeech 2022 · doi:10.21437/interspeech.2022-10892 · Cited by 22 · cited 1×
“3d) for speech decoding and speech synthesis 128,129 .”
Speaker-Independent Acoustic-to-Articulatory Speech Inversion
Wu, P., Chen, L., Cho, C. J., Watanabe, S., Goldstein, L. M., Black, A. W., & Anumanchipalli, G. K. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49357.2023.10096796 · Cited by 22
Measuring the acceptable word error rate of machine-generated webcast transcripts
Munteanu, C., Penn, G., Baecker, R., Toms, E., & James, D. (2006) · Interspeech 2006 · doi:10.21437/interspeech.2006-40 · Cited by 21 · cited 1×
“For text-decoding systems, these metrics draw heavily on precedents set in ASR 141,142 .”
Evidence of Vocal Tract Articulation in Self-Supervised Learning of Speech
Cho, C. J., Wu, P., Mohamed, A., & Anumanchipalli, G. K. (2023) · ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) · doi:10.1109/icassp49357.2023.10094711 · Cited by 21 · cited 1×
“3d) for speech decoding and speech synthesis 128,129 .”
Transformation into language processing units by dividing and connecting utterance units
Takezawa, T. (1999) · 6th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology · doi:10.21437/eurospeech.1999-510 · Cited by 19
Thukral, A., Ershad, F., Enan, N., Rao, Z., & Yu, C. (2018) · IEEE Nanotechnology Magazine · doi:10.1109/mnano.2017.2781290 · Cited by 19 · cited 1×
“These techniques have relatively high temporal resolution but lack spatial specificity, with each sensor recording from a large area of the brain 73 .”
Lee, A. T., Nichols, N., Speidel, B. A., et al. (2022) · Journal of neurosurgery · doi:10.3171/2022.5.jns221118 · Cited by 19
Self-citationFan, C., Hahn, N., Kamdar, F., Avansino, D., Wilson, G. H., Hochberg, L., Shenoy, K. V., Henderson, J. M., & Willett, F. R. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.03611 · Cited by 19 · cited 3×
“In this approach, MEA activity is decoded into subword units and converted into sentences using language models; this language model output is used as a ‘pseudo-label’ to update the RNN decoding model 9,16,105 .”
Thomas, T. M., Singh, A., Bullock, L. P., Liang, D., Morse, C. W., Scherschligt, X., Seymour, J. P., & Tandon, N. (2023) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ace9fb · Cited by 18
A dual larynx motor networks hypothesis
Belyk, M., Eichert, N., & McGettigan, C. (2021) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B · doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0392 · Cited by 17 · cited 1×
“…work discovered that SMC populations encode articulatory kinematic trajectories and vocal-tract configurations 43 during continuous speech 24,39,44,45 24 discovered that the SMC encodes a large variety of low-dimensional movement trajectories of the vocal tract (also called gestures), which could…”
Drop, Swap, and Generate: A Self-Supervised Approach for Generating Neural ActivityPreprint
Liu, R., Azabou, M., Dabagia, M., Lin, C.-H., Azar, M. G., Hengen, K. B., Valko, M., & Dyer, E. L. (2021) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.02338 · Cited by 17
Online internal speech decoding from single neurons in a human participant
Wandelt, S. K., Bjånes, D. A., Pejsa, K., Lee, B., Liu, C., & Andersen, R. A. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.11.02.22281775 · Cited by 17 · cited 3×
“1; Wandelt et al. 2022).”
Fan, C., Hahn, N. V., Kamdar, F. B., Avansino, D. T., Wilson, G. H., Hochberg, L. R., Shenoy, K. V., Henderson, J. M., & Willett, F. R. (2023) · PubMed · Cited by 17
Thin-film, high-density micro-electrocorticographic decoding of a human cortical gyrus
Muller, L., Felix, S., Shah, K. G., Lee, K., Pannu, S., & Chang, E. F. (2016) · 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) · doi:10.1109/embc.2016.7591001 · Cited by 15 · cited 1×
“For example, higher-density cortical sampling — via an increased number of surface or penetrating electrodes — has been shown to increase the performance of decoding models 14–16, 175 , 176 .”
Self-citationQuirarte, J. A., Kumar, V. A., Liu, H.-L., Noll, K. R., Wefel, J. S., & Lang, F. F. (2021) · Journal of Neurosurgery · doi:10.3171/2020.4.jns193250 · Cited by 15 · cited 1×
“The supplementary motor area (SMA) is another important region in the speech production network 165,169 that is involved in speech initiation 170 .”
Shahrebabaki, A. S., Salvi, G., Svendsen, T. K., & Siniscalchi, S. M. (2021) · IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio Speech and Language Processing · doi:10.1109/taslp.2021.3133218 · Cited by 15 · cited 1×
“A complementary approach to defining discrete vocal-tract configurations is to measure the location of individual vocal-tract articulators continuously over time, using imaging techniques and biosensors 22 or inference from the produced sound 23–26 (Fig.”
High-Density, Actively Multiplexed µECoG Array on Reinforced Silicone Substrate
Rachinskiy, I., Wong, L., Chiang, C.-H., Wang, C., Trumpis, M., Ogren, J. I., Hu, Z., McLaughlin, B., & Viventi, J. (2022) · Frontiers in Nanotechnology · doi:10.3389/fnano.2022.837328 · Cited by 14
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- Das, J. M., Anosike, K. & Asuncion, R. M. D. Locked-in syndrome. StatPearls https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559026/ (StatPearls, 2021).
- Bull, P. & Frederikson, L. in Companion Encyclopedia of Psychology (Routledge, 1994).
- Baddeley, A. Working Memory xi, 289 (Clarendon/Oxford Univ. Press, 1986).
- Penfield, W. & Roberts, L. Speech and Brain-Mechanisms (Princeton Univ. Press, 1959). This study provided insights into cortical control of speech and language through neurosurgical cases, including cortical resection, direct-cortical stimulation and seizure mapping.
- Acharya, A. B. & Maani, C. V. Conduction aphasia. StatPearls https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537006/ (StatPearls, 2023).
- Fernández-de Thomas, R. J., Munakomi, S. & De Jesus, O. Craniotomy. StatPearls https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560922/ (StatPearls, 2024).
- Jia, J., Wang, X., Wu, Z., Cai, L. & Meng, H. Modeling the correlation between modality semantics and facial expressions. In Proc. 2012 Asia Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference 1–10 (2012).
- Nip, I. & Roth, C. R. in Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology (eds Kreutzer, J., DeLuca, J. & Caplan, B.) (Springer International, 2017).
- Companion Volume, Short Papers 173-176 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2007).
- Trnka, K., Mccaw, J., Mccoy, K. & Pennington, C. in Human Language Technologies 2007 173–176 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
- Cho, C. J., Chang, E. & Anumanchipalli, G. Neural latent aligner: cross-trial alignment for learning representations of complex, naturalistic neural data. In Proc. 40th Int. Conf. Machine Learning 5661–5676 (PMLR, 2023).
- Oppenheim, A. V., Schafer, R. W. & Schafer, R. W. Discrete-Time Signal Processing (Pearson, 2014).
- Duffy, J. R. Motor Speech Disorders: Substrates, Differential Diagnosis, and Management (Elsevier Health Sciences, 2019).
- Sokolov, A. Inner Speech and Thought (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012).
- Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Value & Science-Driven Health Care. Clinical Data as the Basic Staple of Health Learning: Creating and Protecting a Public Good: Workshop Summary (National Academies Press, 2011).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An instantaneous voice-synthesis neuroprosthesis
Wairagkar, M., Card, N. S., Singer-Clark, T., Hou, X., Iacobacci, C., Miller, L. M., Hochberg, L. R., Brandman, D. M., & Stavisky, S. D. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09127-3 · Cited by 120
A streaming brain-to-voice neuroprosthesis to restore naturalistic communication
Littlejohn, K. T., Cho, C. J., Liu, J. R., Silva, A. B., Yu, B., Anderson, V. R., Kurtz-Miott, C. M., Brosler, S., Kashyap, A., Hallinan, I. P., et al. (2025) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-025-01905-6 · Cited by 104
“Translating these findings into speech neuroprostheses that can restore fluent communication in people with severe vocal tract paralysis has been elusive 6 .”
InfluentialSelf-citationInner speech in motor cortex and implications for speech neuroprostheses
Kunz, E. M., Abramovich Krasa, B., Kamdar, F., Avansino, D. T., Hahn, N., Yoon, S., Singh, A., Nason-Tomaszewski, S. R., Card, N. S., Jude, J. J., et al. (2025) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2025.06.015 · Cited by 55
“Using the decoding pipeline from our previous work 12,17 (Figure 3A), we trained real-time decoders on data recorded as participants internally spoke cued sentences with their preferred inner-speech strategy (see STAR Methods).”
Restoring Speech Using Brain–Computer Interfaces
Stavisky, S. D. (2025) · Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-110122-012818 · Cited by 42
Emerging Medical Technologies and Their Use in Bionic Repair and Human Augmentation
Manero, A. C., Rivera, V., Fu, Q., Schwartzman, J. D., Gibbs, H. P., Shah, N., Gandhi, D. A., White, E., Crawford, K. E., & Coathup, M. J. (2024) · Bioengineering · doi:10.3390/bioengineering11070695 · Cited by 24
“Recent discoveries have developed high-spatiotemporal-resolution neural interfaces together with the adaptation of state-of-the-art speech computational algorithms that have resulted in rapid and impactful advancements in decoding neural activity into text, audible speech, and facial movements [43].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Silva, A. B., Littlejohn, K. T., Liu, J. R., Moses, D. A., & Chang, E. F.
- Affiliations
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Corresponding author
- Chang, Edward F.
- Venue
- Nature Reviews Neuroscience
- Published
- 2024-05-14
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 473-492
- ISSN
- 1471-003X (ISSN-L)
- 1471-0048
- PMC
- PMC11540306
- OpenAlex
- W4396905256
- Cited by
- 103
- References
- 207
- Citations by year
- 2026: 41 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 9
- FWCI
- 6.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature reviews. Neuroscience (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, public-domain)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (F30DC021872, U01DC018671)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Voice and Speech Disorders
- Keywords
- speech decoding, motor planning, paralysis, intracranial electrodes, epilepsy monitoring, neural interfaces, augmentative and alternative communication, evaluation metrics, speech production
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Humans, Speech, Neural Prostheses, 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
