The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 32 of the 39 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) can restore communication to people who have lost the ability to move or speak. So far, a major focus of BCI research has been on restoring gross motor skills, such as reaching and grasping 1-5 or point-and-click typing with a computer cursor 6,7. However, rapid sequences of highly dexterous behaviours, such as handwriting or touch typing, might enable faster rates of communication. Here we developed an intracortical BCI that decodes attempted handwriting movements from neural activity in the motor cortex and translates it to text in real time, using a recurrent neural network decoding approach. With this BCI, our study participant, whose hand was paralysed from spinal cord injury, achieved typing speeds of 90 characters per minute with 94.1% raw accuracy online, and greater than 99% accuracy offline with a general-purpose autocorrect. To our knowledge, these typing speeds exceed those reported for any other BCI, and are comparable to typical smartphone typing speeds of individuals in the age group of our participant (115 characters per minute)8. Finally, theoretical considerations explain why temporally complex movements, such as handwriting, may be fundamentally easier to decode than point-to-point movements. Our results open a new approach for BCIs and demonstrate the feasibility of accurately decoding rapid, dexterous movements years after paralysis.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
20 Own result · 11 Own interpretation · 7 Supported · 7 Partly supported · 3 No basis given · 2 No full text of the sources · 1 Supported so far · 1 Not supported · 1 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“During parameter optimization, the cursor gain is increased so as to increase typing rate, until the cursor moves so quickly that it becomes uncontrollable due to decoding errors22.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Temporal variety improves decoding
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [22] Willett, F. R. et al. Signal-independent noise in intracortical brain–computer interfaces causes movement time properties inconsistent with Fitts’ law. J. Neural Eng. 14, 026010 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section, “Effect of gain on movement time” (page unavailable), reports that increasing gain initially shortened target-acquisition time, but higher gains made cursor movements fast, inaccurate, and uncontrollable around targets. The paper relates this difficulty to decoding noise, but it studies cursor target acquisition, not typing rate, and does not describe the claimed typing-speed optimization procedure. (LLM, conf=0.85)
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
“The speed of point-and-click BCIs is limited primarily by decoding accuracy.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Temporal variety improves decoding
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [22] Willett, F. R. et al. Signal-independent noise in intracortical brain–computer interfaces causes movement time properties inconsistent with Fitts’ law. J. Neural Eng. 14, 026010 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Effect of gain on movement time; page unavailable) report that increasing cursor speed made movements fast but inaccurate, and the Introduction identifies signal-independent decoding noise as the root cause of the movement-time properties observed. This supports a speed–accuracy constraint in the intracortical cursor systems studied, but not the broader claim that decoding accuracy is the primary speed limit for point-and-click BCIs generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)
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
“EEG spellers based on oddball potentials or motor imagery typically achieve 1–5 characters per minute28–32.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Discussion
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [28] Vansteensel, M. J. et al. Fully implanted brain–computer interface in a locked-in patient with ALS. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 2060–2066 (2016). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section, “Communication and Independent Home Use” (page unavailable), reports spelling times for one patient using a fully implanted interface. Our copy does not give a typical rate for EEG spellers based on oddball potentials or motor imagery; searches for those methods and their characters-per-minute rates found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Partly supportedcites [29] Nijboer, F. et al. A P300-based brain–computer interface for people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Clin. Neurophysiol. 119, 1909–1916 (2008). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report 1.2 and 2.1 selections per minute for the study’s P300 speller, which uses an oddball paradigm (Introduction). This supports the stated range for this speller in people with ALS, but the paper does not establish that EEG spellers generally achieve that rate or provide a rate for motor-imagery spellers. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [30] Townsend, G. et al. A novel P300-based brain–computer interface stimulus presentation paradigm: moving beyond rows and columns. Clin. Neurophysiol. 121, 1109–1120 (2010). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (§4.2; page unavailable) reports 4.10 selections/min for a previously studied P300 speller and 4.36 selections/min for this paper’s checkerboard P300 paradigm, both within the claimed range. It does not establish that 1–5 characters/min is typical across EEG spellers or report a rate for motor-imagery spellers. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites [31] McCane, L. M. et al. P300-based brain–computer interface (BCI) event-related potentials (ERPs): people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) vs. age-matched controls. Clin. Neurophysiol. 126, 2124–2131 (2015). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) identifies the P300 speller as an oddball-response system that provides slow communication. The Methods describe a characters-per-minute measure, and the Results report communication rates for this study, but the passages do not state that EEG spellers typically achieve 1–5 characters per minute or address motor-imagery spellers. (LLM, conf=0.77)
- Partly supportedcites [32] Wolpaw, J. R. et al. Independent home use of a brain–computer interface by people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurology 91, e258–e267 (2018). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report an average of 2.9 (±1.3 SD) selections per minute for BCI applications used by people with ALS, within the claimed numerical range. The paper does not establish a typical rate of 1–5 characters per minute across EEG spellers based on oddball potentials or motor imagery; selections are also not necessarily characters. (LLM, conf=0.86)
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.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For intracortical BCIs, the highest performing method has been point-and-click typing with a 2D computer cursor, peaking at 40 characters per minute 7”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Temporal variety improves decoding
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [7] Pandarinath, C. et al. High performance communication by people with paralysis using an intracortical brain–computer interface. eLife 6, e18554 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes two-dimensional cursor control with click selection, and the Results say this study outperformed previous BCIs tested with people with motor impairment. The Results report T5’s average typing rate as 39.2 correct characters per minute, approximately 40, but do not identify 40 as a peak or an upper limit. (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.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The prior state-of-the-art for free typing in intracortical BCIs was 24.4 correct characters per minute 7.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Decoding handwritten sentences
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [7] Pandarinath, C. et al. High performance communication by people with paralysis using an intracortical brain–computer interface. eLife 6, e18554 (2017). source
The Results report T6’s mean free typing rate as 24.4 correct characters per minute and describe those sessions as achieving, to the authors’ knowledge, the highest typing rate to date for a person with a physical disability using a BCI. This supports the citing paper’s description of that rate as the prior benchmark for free typing. (LLM, conf=0.93)
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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“We used a time-alignment technique to remove temporal variability11, revealing remarkably consistent underlying patterns of neural activity that are unique to each character (Fig. 1c).”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Neural representation of handwriting
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [11] Williams, A. H. et al. Discovering precise temporal patterns in large-scale neural recordings through robust and interpretable time warping. Neuron 105, 246–259 (2020). source
The citation is attached to the time-alignment technique, not the citing authors’ character-specific finding. The source’s Results section (“Time Warping Framework”) describes trial-by-trial time warping to correct variability in the timing of neural activity. (LLM, conf=0.91)
boosteddirectSingle 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
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
“Current microelectrode array technology has been shown to retain functionality for 1000+ days post implant37,38 (including here; see Extended Data Fig. 7)”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [37] Simeral, J. D., Kim, S.-P., Black, M. J., Donoghue, J. P. & Hochberg, L. R. Neural control of cursor trajectory and click by a human with tetraplegia 1000 days after implant of an intracortical microelectrode array. J. Neural Eng. 8, 025027 (2011). source
The Methods section (2.2) places the study sessions on implant days 999–1003. The Discussion (4.1) reports successful point-and-click control on day 1003, supporting retained array functionality beyond 1000 days. The parenthetical “including here” refers to the citing authors’ own study, not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [38] Bullard, A. J., Hutchison, B. C., Lee, J., Chestek, C. A. & Patil, P. G. Estimating risk for future intracranial, fully implanted, modular neuroprosthetic systems: a systematic review of hardware complications in clinical deep brain stimulation and experimental human intracortical arrays. Neuromodulation 23, 411–426 (2020). source
boostedSingle 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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“and has enabled the highest BCI performance to date compared to other recording technologies (EEG, ECoG) for restoring communication7, arm control2,5, and general-purpose computer use39.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [7] Pandarinath, C. et al. High performance communication by people with paralysis using an intracortical brain–computer interface. eLife 6, e18554 (2017). source
Citation 7 is attached to restoring communication, not to arm control or general-purpose computer use, which have separate citations. In the Results (Table 1; page unavailable), the paper compares its intracortical communication BCI with prior systems, including EEG systems, and states that it outperforms all previous BCIs tested with people with motor impairment. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [2] Collinger, J. L. et al. High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. Lancet 381, 557–564 (2013). source
This citation is attached to arm control, not to communication or general-purpose computer use. The Methods (Array implantation; page unavailable) describe intracortical microelectrode arrays, and the Introduction (page unavailable) contrasts this study’s robust seven-dimensional prosthetic-arm control with earlier human studies limited to three-dimensional translation and discrete grasp. That supports the citing sentence’s arm-control comparison. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [5] Ajiboye, A. B. et al. Restoration of reaching and grasping movements through brain-controlled muscle stimulation in a person with tetraplegia: a proof-of-concept demonstration. Lancet 389, 1821–1830 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods describe implanted microelectrode arrays controlling reaching and grasping, and the Discussion says intracortical BCIs offer greater functional performance than non-invasive systems, specifically contrasting robotic-arm control with EEG. The paper does not establish a performance comparison with ECoG. Communication and general-purpose computer use have separate citations in the citing sentence and are not judged against this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites [39] Nuyujukian, P. et al. Cortical control of a tablet computer by people with paralysis. PLoS One 13, e0204566 (2018). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) says prior EEG and ECoG work had not shown general control of a computing device such as a commercial tablet. The Abstract and Conclusion (pages unavailable) report high-performance control of an unmodified general-purpose tablet using implanted arrays. The paper does not establish that this achieved the highest BCI performance relative to EEG or ECoG; the separate communication and arm-control claims carry other citations in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.84)
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.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that when only 2–7 days passed between sessions, performance was reasonable with no decoder retraining (11.1% raw error rate, 1.5% with a language model)”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Daily decoder retraining
plainSingle 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — 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, typing rates were high, plateauing at 90 characters per minute with a 5.4% character error rate (Fig. 2c, average of red circles).”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Decoding handwritten sentences
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. 20
- Probably not a substantial claim. 8
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
“which is comparable to state-of-the-art speech recognition systems (e.g. word error rates of 4–5% 14,15), putting it well within the range of usability.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Decoding handwritten sentences
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [14] Xiong, W. et al. The Microsoft 2017 Conversational Speech Recognition System. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.06073 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions (p. 4) identify 6.2% as the state-of-the-art word error rate on the Switchboard test data, not 4–5%. The paper does not assess whether an error rate is usable; the citing sentence presents usability as its own inference. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] He, Y. et al. Streaming end-to-end speech recognition for mobile devices. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing 6381–6385 (2019). 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.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Prior BCI studies have shown that the motor intention for gross motor skills, such as reaching, grasping or moving a computer cursor, remains neurally encoded in motor cortex after paralysis1–7.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Neural representation of handwriting
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [1] Hochberg, L. R. et al. Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm. Nature 485, 372–375 (2012). source
The Abstract reports that people with longstanding tetraplegia previously used neural signals to move and click a computer cursor. It also reports that two participants used motor-cortex activity generated by intended arm and hand movements to reach and grasp with a robotic arm, supporting the claim that these intentions remain neurally encoded after paralysis. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [2] Collinger, J. L. et al. High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. Lancet 381, 557–564 (2013). source
The Methods describe intracortical electrodes implanted in the motor cortex of a person with tetraplegia, and the Introduction reports neural control of reaching and grasping. The Discussion also reports earlier human intracortical studies controlling computer cursors. The copy provides section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Partly supportedcites [3] Aflalo, T. et al. Neurophysiology. Decoding motor imagery from the posterior parietal cortex of a tetraplegic human. Science 348, 906–910 (2015). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The passage comparing this study with previous human M1 recordings (indexed section labeled Abstract; page unavailable) reports that those studies decoded movement trajectories, supporting the motor-cortex portion in part. This paper’s own recordings of imagined reaching, grasping, and cursor control were from the posterior parietal cortex of a tetraplegic participant, not motor cortex. It does not establish that the earlier motor-cortex studies demonstrated all three movements named in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] Bouton, C. E. et al. Restoring cortical control of functional movement in a human with quadriplegia. Nature 533, 247–250 (2016). source
- Supportedcites [5] Ajiboye, A. B. et al. Restoration of reaching and grasping movements through brain-controlled muscle stimulation in a person with tetraplegia: a proof-of-concept demonstration. Lancet 389, 1821–1830 (2017). source
The Introduction reports that people with paralysis had used intracortical BCIs to control cursors and robotic reaching and grasping. The Methods locate the arrays in motor cortex, and the Results report neural activity strongly related to intended movements in the participant with tetraplegia. Together, these passages support the claim that movement intentions remain neurally encoded after paralysis. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [6] Jarosiewicz, B. et al. Virtual typing by people with tetraplegia using a self-calibrating intracortical brain–computer interface. Sci. Transl. Med. 7, 313ra179 (2015). source
The Introduction reports that people with tetraplegia have controlled cursors and robotic arms through intracortical BCIs by imagining arm movement. The Results locate the recorded neural signals in the hand/arm area of motor cortex, and the References identify an earlier study of neurally controlled reaching and grasping by people with tetraplegia. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites [7] Pandarinath, C. et al. High performance communication by people with paralysis using an intracortical brain–computer interface. eLife 6, e18554 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that people with no limb movement controlled a cursor using an intracortical BCI, and that monkeys given a paralytic agent retained grasp-related cortical activity. Our copy does not establish the claimed post-paralysis encoding of intended reaching; its mention of reaching is in a reference title about primates. (LLM, conf=0.82)
boostedcorrelational- 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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“as might be expected from prior work showing short-term stability of neural recordings19–21.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Daily decoder retraining
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [19] Dickey, A. S., Suminski, A., Amit, Y. & Hatsopoulos, N. G. Single-unit stability using chronically implanted multielectrode arrays. J. Neurophysiol. 102, 1331–1339 (2009). source
The Abstract reports that 57% of the original units remained stable through 7 days, and the Discussion concludes that a subset of neurons remained stable for days to weeks. This supports the cited point about short-term stability of neural recordings; the finding concerns a subset of recorded units, not every unit. Page numbers were not provided in the supplied passages. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites [20] Eleryan, A. et al. Tracking single units in chronic, large scale, neural recordings for brain machine interface applications. Front. Neuroeng. 7, 23 (2014). source
The Discussion reports stable single units across recording days and describes this paper’s method for tracking them using 15-minute recordings. That supports the broad claim of short-term stability, though the paper also notes that neural signals can fluctuate and not every unit remains stable. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Supportedcites [21] Downey, J. E., Schwed, N., Chase, S. M., Schwartz, A. B. & Collinger, J. L. Intracortical recording stability in human brain–computer interface users. J. Neural Eng. 15, 046016 (2018). source
The Results section, “Most units are stable for hours,” reports that 72%–80% of recorded units remained stable across recordings one hour apart in both subjects. This supports the cited claim of short-term stability without implying that every recording was stable. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedged- 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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“More generally, using the principle of maximizing the nearest neighbor distance between movements, it should be possible to optimize a set of movements for ease of classification26.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Temporal variety improves decoding
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [26] Cunningham, J. P., Yu, B. M., Gilja, V., Ryu, S. I. & Shenoy, K. V. Toward optimal target placement for neural prosthetic devices. J. Neurophysiol. 100, 3445–3457 (2008). source
The Methods section states that the least distinguishable pair of reach targets has the smallest KL divergence and that maximizing this minimum divergence reduces decoding error. This supports optimizing a set of movements for easier classification; the relevant distance is between their neural-response distributions, not necessarily their physical positions. (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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Variability in performance across participants is also a potential concern (in a prior study, T5 achieved the highest performance of 3 participants7).”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [7] Pandarinath, C. et al. High performance communication by people with paralysis using an intracortical brain–computer interface. eLife 6, e18554 (2017). source
The Results report performance for all three participants: T5 had the highest average grid-task bitrate (3.7 bps, versus 2.2 for T6 and 1.4 for T7). The Results also show T5 had the highest reported average typing rate, while the Discussion explicitly notes variation in communication rates across participants. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgedn = 3- 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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Recently, speech-decoding BCIs have shown exciting promise for restoring rapid communication (e.g. 34,16,17), but their accuracies and vocabulary sizes require further improvement to support general-purpose use.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [34] Mugler, E. M. et al. Direct classification of all American English phonemes using signals from functional speech motor cortex. J. Neural Eng. 11, 035015 (2014). source
The Abstract reports word identification equivalent to as much as 33.6 words per minute, supporting the promise of speech-based BCI communication. The Discussion says word identification was only 18.8% and was not sufficient for communication, while describing broader word decoding as a future step. Together, these support the claim that accuracy and vocabulary coverage need improvement for general-purpose use. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [16] Anumanchipalli, G. K., Chartier, J. & Chang, E. F. Speech synthesis from neural decoding of spoken sentences. Nature 568, 493–498 (2019). source
The Abstract and Discussion describe neural speech synthesis as a promising route to communication at a natural speaking rate. Synthesis performance reports testing with only 25- or 50-word choice pools and median word error rates of 31% and 53%, respectively. Those limits support the claim that accuracy and vocabulary would need improvement for general-purpose use. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Supportedcites [17] Makin, J. G., Moses, D. A. & Chang, E. F. Machine translation of cortical activity to text with an encoder-decoder framework. Nat. Neurosci. 23, 575–582 (2020). source
The Abstract reports decoding at natural-speech rates with word error rates as low as 3%. The Discussion qualifies that result: testing was limited to 30–50 sentences and a 250-word vocabulary, and it remains unknown how much data would be needed to extend the approach to general English. Page numbers were not provided 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. 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
“EEG spellers that use visually evoked potentials have achieved speeds of 60 characters per minute 18, but have important usability limitations, as they tie up the eyes, are not typically self-paced, and require panels of flashing lights on a screen.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [18] Chen, X. et al. High-speed spelling with a noninvasive brain–computer interface. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E6058–E6067 (2015). source
The citation is attached to the 60-characters-per-minute figure. The Results report that this EEG-based SSVEP speller achieved that rate; the subsequent usability characterization is not the part directly attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.94)
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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Intracortical BCIs based on 2D cursor movements give the user more freedom to look around and set their own pace of communication, but have yet to exceed 40 correct characters per minute in people7.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [7] Pandarinath, C. et al. High performance communication by people with paralysis using an intracortical brain–computer interface. eLife 6, e18554 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes continuous two-dimensional cursor control, and the Discussion describes the point-and-click interface as flexible. The Results report average copy-typing rates up to 39.2 correct characters per minute, but do not establish that no individual typing rate exceeded 40. The cited passages also do not establish the specific claim that users can look around while communicating. (LLM, conf=0.84)
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
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The neural activity appeared to be strong and repeatable, although the timing of its peaks and valleys varied across trials, potentially due to fluctuations in writing speed.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Neural representation of handwriting
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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We assessed the stability of the neural patterns associated with each character and found high short-term stability (mean correlation = 0.85 when 7 days apart or less), and neural changes that seemed to accumulate at a steady and predictable rate (Extended Data Fig. 4).”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Daily decoder retraining
hedgedcorrelationalSingle 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accuracy was extremely high in this regime (0.17% character error rate), indicating a high potential ceiling of performance, although this decoder would not be able to provide letter-by-letter feedback to the user.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Decoding handwritten sentences
hedgedcorrelationalSingle 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Readily recognizable letter shapes confirm that pen tip velocity is robustly encoded.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Neural representation of handwriting
boostedcorrelationalSingle 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that spatial dimensionality was only modestly larger for characters (1.24 times larger; 95% CI = [1.19, 1.30]), but that the temporal dimensionality was much greater (2.65 times larger; 95% CI = [2.58, 2.72])”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Temporal variety improves decoding
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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The character error rate fell to 0.89% and the word error rate fell to 3.4% averaged across all days”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Decoding handwritten sentences
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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The t-SNE visualization revealed tight clusters of neural activity for each character and a predominantly motoric encoding where characters that are written similarly are closer together.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Neural representation of handwriting
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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“T5 has a high-level spinal cord injury (C4 AIS C) and was paralyzed from the neck down; his hand movements were entirely non-functional and limited to twitching and micromotion.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Neural representation of handwriting
plainSingle 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Simply by allowing the trajectories to change in time (Fig. 4g), the nearest neighbor distance between the neural trajectories can be increased, resulting in an increase in classification accuracy when noise levels are large enough (Fig. 4h).”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Temporal variety improves decoding
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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results confirm that high performance can also be achieved when the user writes self-generated sentences as opposed to copying on-screen prompts (73.8 characters per minute with an 8.54% character error rate in real-time, 2.25% with a language model).”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Decoding handwritten sentences
boostedSingle 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that 10 sentences (8.7 minutes) were enough to achieve a raw error rate of 8.5% (1.7% with a language model), although 30 sentences were needed to match the raw online error rate of 5.9%.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Daily decoder retraining
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.
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
“We think this is one, but not necessarily the only, important factor that enabled a handwriting BCI to go faster than continuous-motion point-and-click BCIs.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Temporal variety improves decoding
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
“Retraining helps account for changes in neural recordings that accrue over time, which might be caused by neural plasticity or electrode array micromotion.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Daily decoder retraining
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.
Probably not a substantial claim.
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
“Other discrete (classification-based) BCIs have also typically used directional movements with little temporal variety, which may have limited their accuracy and/or the size of the movement set24,25.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Temporal variety improves decoding
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] Musallam, S., Corneil, B. D., Greger, B., Scherberger, H. & Andersen, R. A. Cognitive control signals for neural prosthetics. Science 305, 258–262 (2004). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [25] Santhanam, G., Ryu, S. I., Yu, B. M., Afshar, A. & Shenoy, K. V. A high-performance brain–computer interface. Nature 442, 195–198 (2006). source
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.
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
“The demonstrated real-time system is general (the user can express any sentence), easy to use (entirely self-paced and the eyes are free to move), and accurate enough to be useful in the real-world (94.1% raw accuracy, and >99% accuracy offline with a large-vocabulary language model).”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Discussion
boostedSingle 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.
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
“These methods could be applied more generally to any sequential behavior that cannot be observed directly (e.g., decoding speech from someone who can no longer speak).”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Discussion
hedgedconditional- 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.
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
“More broadly, intracortical microelectrode array technology is still maturing, and requires further demonstrations of longevity, safety, and efficacy before widespread clinical adoption35,36.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] Nurmikko, A. Challenges for large-scale cortical interfaces. Neuron 108, 259–269 (2020). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [36] Vázquez-Guardado, A., Yang, Y., Bandodkar, A. J. & Rogers, J. A. Recent advances in neurotechnologies with broad potential for neuroscience research. Nat. Neurosci. 23, 1522–1536 (2020). 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
“Finally, it is important to recognize that the current system is a proof-of-concept that a high-performance handwriting BCI is possible (in a single participant); it is not yet a complete, clinically viable system.”
§ High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting > Discussion
plainSingle 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.
The authors state this as an assumption.
It was not yet known whether the neural representation for a rapid, highly dexterous skill such as handwriting remains intact after paralysis.
“However, it is still unknown whether the neural representation for a rapid and highly-dexterous motor skill, such as handwriting, also remains intact.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“which is 3.4 times as fast as the previous record8”
From A high-performance speech neuroprosthesis (2023) · cites this paper as [8]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“During 14 days of data collection shortly after device implantation, we achieved high-performance text decoding, exceeding communication speeds of previous BCIs by a factor of 4 or more1,3,9”
From A high-performance neuroprosthesis for speech decoding and avatar control (2023) · cites this paper as [9]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A second approach, specific to text decoding, involves leveraging large language models to automatically recalibrate MEA-based text neuroprostheses.”
From The speech neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [9]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A similar tradeoff can be facilitated by having a spelling framework available on the neuroprosthesis, either using attempted speech120 or handwriting9, which would allow users to spell out arbitrary sentences with high accuracy (albeit with substantially lower speeds).”
From The speech neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [9]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This decoding rate exceeds our participant’s typical communication rate using her assistive device (14.2 WPM; Supplementary Note 2) and is closer to naturalistic speaking rates than has been previously reported with communication neuroprostheses1,3,7–9.”
From A high-performance neuroprosthesis for speech decoding and avatar control (2023) · cites this paper as [9]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing 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.”
From The speech neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [9]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“MEA-based decoders, including text decoders9,15, have traditionally required day-to-day recalibration owing to signal instabilities and drift, requiring additional dedicated time from the user.”
From The speech neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [9]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“and several studies indicate that UEAs retain their functionality in humans for more than 1000 days (29, 31).”
From Visual percepts evoked with an intracortical 96-channel microelectrode array inserted in human occipital cortex (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Although the duration of this study was limited to 6 months, UEAs have been successfully implanted in human subjects in numerous studies (25-29) and these devices have continued to work for many years.”
From Visual percepts evoked with an intracortical 96-channel microelectrode array inserted in human occipital cortex (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Recently, BCIs based on hand movement activity have enabled typing speeds of between eight and 18 words per minute in people with paralysis8,29.”
From A high-performance speech neuroprosthesis (2023) · cites this paper as [8]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Neurotechnologies can decode and project very specific and often rudimentary forms of thought, such as imagined handwriting, 40 typing, 27 and other kinds of intended and directed movements. 28”
From AI and Neurotechnology (2023) · cites this paper as [40]
Citations
Cites
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946 · cited 3×
“We used the gradient descent method “Adam” (Kingma and Ba, 2017) (beta1 = 0.”
Method(2008) · Journal of Machine Learning Research · Cited by 33,051
Learning Phrase Representations using RNN Encoder–Decoder for Statistical Machine Translation
Cho, K., van Merrienboer, B., Gulcehre, C., Bahdanau, D., Bougares, F., Schwenk, H., & Bengio, Y. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.3115/v1/d14-1179 · Cited by 25,545 · cited 1×
“We used a two layer, gated recurrent unit RNN (Cho et al., 2014) to convert T5’s neural activity into a time series of character probabilities (see Extended Data Fig.”
MethodHinton, G., Deng, L., Yu, D., Dahl, G., Mohamed, A.-R., Jaitly, N., Senior, A., Vanhoucke, V., Nguyen, P., Sainath, T., et al. (2012) · IEEE Signal Processing Magazine · doi:10.1109/msp.2012.2205597 · Cited by 10,260
TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systems
Abadi, M., Agarwal, A., Barham, P., Brevdo, E., Chen, Z., Citro, C., Corrado, G. S., Davis, A., Dean, J., Devin, M., et al. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1603.04467 · Cited by 9,408 · cited 2×
“We used the “Adam” gradient descent method (Abadi et al., 2016; Kingma and Ba, 2017).”
MethodSpeech recognition with deep recurrent neural networks
Graves, A., Mohamed, A.-R., & Hinton, G. (2013) · 2013 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp.2013.6638947 · Cited by 8,893 · cited 1×
“Our methods are similar to neural network methods used in automatic speech recognition (Hinton et al., 2012; Graves et al., 2013; Zeyer et al., 2017; Xiong et al., 2017), but with some key changes made to achieve high performance on neural activity in a highly data-limited regime (1-10 hours of data, as opposed to 1,0…”
Method“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 · cited 1×
“, 2017), but with some key changes made to achieve high performance on neural activity in a highly data-limited regime (1-10 hours of data, as opposed to 1,000+ hours (Cieri et al., 2004; Panayotov et al., 2015; He et al., 2019)).”
BackgroundGraves, 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
Kaldi Speech Recognition Toolkit
Povey, D. (2024) · Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) · doi:10.57702/jb3fvbn9 · Cited by 5,270
Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia
Hochberg, L. R., Serruya, M. D., Friehs, G. M., Mukand, J. A., Saleh, M., Caplan, A. H., Branner, A., Chen, D., Penn, R. D., & Donoghue, J. P. (2006) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04970 · Cited by 3,295
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rajpurkar, P., Chen, E., Banerjee, O., & Topol, E. J. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01614-0 · Cited by 3,212
“Moreover, AI’s ability to directly transform brain waves to speech or text has remarkable potential value for patients with aphasia or locked-in syndrome who have had strokes 62 .”
BackgroundSpinal cord injury: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic interventions
Hu, X., Xu, W., Ren, Y., Wang, Z., He, X., Huang, R., Ma, B., Zhao, J., Zhu, R., & Cheng, L. (2023) · Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy · doi:10.1038/s41392-023-01477-6 · Cited by 840
“Another clinical trial showed that the neural activities of the motor cortex can be decoded into handwritten actions through BCI, significantly improving the writing speed and accuracy of paralyzed hands in patients with SCI (NCT00912041).(383)”
BackgroundWalking 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
A 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
Self-citationA 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
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
“No statistical methods were used to predetermine sample sizes, but our sample sizes are similar to those reported in previous publications 1,3,4,18,19 .”
BackgroundMethodFlexible brain–computer interfaces
Tang, X., Shen, H., Zhao, S., Li, N., & Jia Liu, B. (2023) · Nature Electronics · doi:10.1038/s41928-022-00913-9 · Cited by 405
“Clinical BCI studies have used Utah arrays in patients to, for example, control robotic limbs 3 , restore sensations with microstimulation 9 and decode dexterous handwriting movement for text translation 10 .”
MethodLarge-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
“3a) and Utah arrays 22,23 , as well as single lowered electrodes as done during DBS surgeries 18,44 , have shown that we can parse and decode complex cognitive processes and motor control even from a small area of cortex.”
BackgroundSelf-citationRecent advances in regenerative biomaterials
Cao, D., & Ding, J. (2022) · Regenerative Biomaterials · doi:10.1093/rb/rbac098 · Cited by 277
Fernández, E., Alfaro, A., Soto-Sánchez, C., Gonzalez-Lopez, P., Lozano, A. M., Peña, S., Grima, M. D., Rodil, A., Gómez, B., Chen, X., et al. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci151331 · Cited by 246
“A recent systematic review of human neuroprosthetic research using the UEA reported that the mean number of days of UEA implantation across all participants at the time of the study was at least 578 days (30), and several studies indicate that UEAs retain their functionality in humans for more than 1000 days (29, 31).”
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
Self-citationRecommendations for Responsible Development and Application of Neurotechnologies
Goering, S., Klein, E., Specker-Sullivan, L., Wexler, A., Arcas, B. A. Y., Bi, G.-Q., Carmena, J., Fins, J., Friesen, P., Gallant, J., et al. (2021) · Neuroethics · doi:10.1007/s12152-021-09468-6 · Cited by 175
Decoding speech perception from non-invasive brain recordings
Défossez, A., Caucheteux, C., Rapin, J., Kabeli, O., & King, J.-R. (2023) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-023-00714-5 · Cited by 322
“Brain Computer Interface (BCI) has been raising high expectations to detect [13, 22, 49, 72] and restore communication abilities in such patients [17, 37, 48, 66, 88, 93].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEmerging 4D Printing Strategies for Next‐Generation Tissue Regeneration and Medical Devices
Wang, Y., Cui, H., Esworthy, T. J., Mei, D., Wang, Y., & Zhang, L. G. (2021) · Advanced Materials · doi:10.1002/adma.202109198 · Cited by 209
Hou, B., Yi, L., Li, C., Zhao, H., Zhang, R., Zhou, B., & Liu, X. (2022) · Nature Electronics · doi:10.1038/s41928-022-00841-8 · Cited by 211
Mitchell, P. J., Lee, S. C. M., Yoo, P. E., Morokoff, A. P., Sharma, R. P., Williams, D. L., MacIsaac, C., Howard, M. E., Irving, L., Vrljic, I., et al. (2023) · JAMA Neurology · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.4847 · Cited by 205
Recent progress and challenges in the treatment of spinal cord injury
Tian, T., Zhang, S., & Yang, M. (2023) · Protein & Cell · doi:10.1093/procel/pwad003 · Cited by 203
CTNet: a convolutional transformer network for EEG-based motor imagery classification
Zhao, W., Jiang, X., Zhang, B., Xiao, S., & Weng, S. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-71118-7 · Cited by 218
Non-Invasive Brain-Computer Interfaces: State of the Art and Trends
Edelman, B. J., Zhang, S., Schalk, G., Brunner, P., Müller-Putz, G., Guan, C., & He, B. (2024) · IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/rbme.2024.3449790 · Cited by 212
“For example, rather than decoding an intended sentence from a word or letter bank presented on a computer screen, modern BCIs can now decode handwriting signals directly from the brain [19].”
Brain–computer interface: trend, challenges, and threats
Maiseli, B. J., Abdalla, A. T., Massawe, L. V., Mbise, M. E., Mkocha, K., Ally, N., Ismail, M., James, M., & Kimambo, S. (2023) · Brain Informatics · doi:10.1186/s40708-023-00199-3 · Cited by 203
“Studies demonstrate that BCI may significantly improve the quality of life for physically challenged people [77, 102].”
BackgroundInfluentialMetzger, 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
Directly wireless communication of human minds via non-invasive brain-computer-metasurface platform
Ma, Q., Gao, W., Xiao, Q., Ding, L., Gao, T., Zhou, Y., Gao, X., Yan, T., Liu, C., Gu, Z., et al. (2022) · eLight · doi:10.1186/s43593-022-00019-x · Cited by 149
“The P300-based BCIs, which identify the operator’s intention from the P300 potentials evoked by flashes of the corresponding buttons on the control panel, have been frequently used [5–7] to assist the handicapped [8] or medical applications [3].”
MethodState-of-the-Art on Brain-Computer Interface Technology
Pekša, J., & Mamchur, D. (2023) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s23136001 · Cited by 163
“Other studies have looked into how BCI technology can be used for more complex forms of communication, such as typing on a computer keyboard or giving speech commands via voice recognition software [131–136].”
BackgroundChaudhary, U., VLACHOS, I. K., Zimmermann, J. B., Espinosa, A., Tonin, A., Jaramillo-Gonzalez, A., Khalili‐Ardali, M., Topka, H. R., Lehmberg, J., Friehs, G. M., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28859-8 · Cited by 151
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
Bio-inspired electronics: Soft, biohybrid, and “living” neural interfaces
Boufidis, D., Garg, R., Angelopoulos, E., Cullen, D. K., & Vitale, F. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-57016-0 · Cited by 183
“In contrast, invasive technologies such as brain-computer (BCI) and brain-machine (BMI) interfaces allow high-bandwidth recordings from deeper brain structures, including both intracortical and subcortical targets 5,13,14 .”
Transfer learning for motor imagery based brain–computer interfaces: A tutorial
Wu, D., Jiang, X., & Peng, R. (2022) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2022.06.008 · Cited by 152
Flexible Electrodes for Brain–Computer Interface System
Wang, J., Wang, T., Liu, H., Wang, K., Kumi, M., Feng, Z., Li, P., & Huang, W. (2023) · Advanced Materials · doi:10.1002/adma.202211012 · Cited by 142
Conformal in-ear bioelectronics for visual and auditory brain-computer interfaces
Wang, Z., Shi, N., Zhang, Y., Zheng, N., Li, H., Jiao, Y., Cheng, J., Wang, Y., Zhang, X., Chen, Y., et al. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-39814-6 · Cited by 143
Shin, J. H., Kwon, J., Kim, J. U., Ryu, H., Ok, J., Joon Kwon, S., Park, H., & Kim, T.-I. (2022) · npj Flexible Electronics · doi:10.1038/s41528-022-00164-w · Cited by 123
“…between the brain and machines 14 – 16 , can be established using electrophysiological sensors, such as brain-surface 17 , brain-penetrating 18,19 , and skin-surface electrodes 20,21 , to assess electrocorticography (ECoG), local fi eld potentials (LFPs), and electroencephalography (EEG),…”
BackgroundImplantable 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
TC-Net: A Transformer Capsule Network for EEG-based emotion recognition
Wei, Y., Liu, Y., Li, C., Cheng, J., Song, R., & Chen, X. (2022) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.106463 · Cited by 117
Preparatory activity and the expansive null-space
Churchland, M. M., & Shenoy, K. V. (2024) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-024-00796-z · Cited by 135
“A final possibility is to abandon the idea of decoder-potent dimensions entirely, and use neural networks 213 or other highly non-linear means 169 to convert factor trajectories into decoded variables.”
Self-citationDecoding 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
Self-citationDeep Learning Enabled Neck Motion Detection Using a Triboelectric Nanogenerator
An, S., Pu, X., Zhou, S., Wu, Y., Li, G., Xing, P., Zhang, Y., & Hu, C. (2022) · ACS Nano · doi:10.1021/acsnano.2c02149 · Cited by 119
Brain-Computer Interface: Applications to Speech Decoding and Synthesis to Augment Communication
Luo, S., Rabbani, Q., & Crone, N. E. (2022) · Neurotherapeutics · doi:10.1007/s13311-022-01190-2 · Cited by 106
“Significant advances have been made to assist these individuals through the use of other types of BCIs, including those using P300 [3], motor imagery [4], handwriting [5], and steady-state visually evoked potential [6].”
BackgroundThe state of clinical trials of implantable brain–computer interfaces
Patrick-Krueger, K. M., Burkhart, I., & Contreras-Vidal, J. L. (2024) · Nature Reviews Bioengineering · doi:10.1038/s44222-024-00239-5 · Cited by 125
Willsey, M. S., Nason, S. R., Ensel, S., Temmar, H., Mender, M. J., Costello, J. T., Patil, P. G., & Chestek, C. A. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34452-w · Cited by 104
Silva, A. B., Littlejohn, K. T., Liu, J. R., Moses, D. A., & Chang, E. F. (2024) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-024-00819-9 · Cited by 103
“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 .”
InfluentialBioelectronic medicine: Preclinical insights and clinical advances
Pavlov, V. A., & Tracey, K. J. (2022) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2022.09.003 · Cited by 110
Proietti, T., O’Neill, C., Gerez, L. F., Cole, T., Mendelowitz, S., Nuckols, K., Hohimer, C. J., Lin, D. J., Paganoni, S., & Walsh, C. J. (2023) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.add1504 · Cited by 104
“In the future, improved strategies of motion intention detection will be investigated to overcome this requirement for the user, for example, by using a brain-computer interface (38, 39).”
MethodNeuroprosthetics: from sensorimotor to cognitive disorders
Gupta, A., Vardalakis, N., & Wagner, F. B. (2023) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-022-04390-w · Cited by 113
Kim, S., Baek, S., Sluyter, R., Konstantinov, K., Kim, J. H., Kim, S., & Kim, J. H. (2023) · EcoMat · doi:10.1002/eom2.12356 · Cited by 105
Artificial intelligence in neurology: opportunities, challenges, and policy implications
Voigtlaender, S., Pawelczyk, J., Geiger, M., Vaios, E., Karschnia, P., Cudkowicz, M., Dietrich, J., Haraldsen, I., Feigin, V. L., Owolabi, M. O., et al. (2024) · Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1007/s00415-024-12220-8 · Cited by 112
“…and restoration of neurological function difficult or impossible Outcome prediction, resource triaging BCI-based neurorehabilitation [96–98] Effective prevention and rehabilitation, leading to greater societal participation Lack of comprehensive, unbiased, accessible datasets for…”
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
A memristor-based adaptive neuromorphic decoder for brain–computer interfaces
Liu, Z., Mei, J., Tang, J., Xu, M., Gao, B., Wang, K., Ding, S., Liu, Q., Qin, Q., Chen, W., et al. (2025) · Nature Electronics · doi:10.1038/s41928-025-01340-2 · Cited by 121
“These trials were filtered in [1, 10] Hz using a Chebyshev type-I infinite impulse response filter.”
Transformer-based Spatial-Temporal Feature Learning for EEG DecodingPreprint
Song, Y., Jia, X., Yang, L., & Xie, L. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.11170 · Cited by 245
“B RAIN-computer interface (BCI) is a technology that provides the possibility of establishing direct connections between the brain and external devices [1].”
BackgroundLuo, 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
The neuroethics of disorders of consciousness: a brief history of evolving ideas
Young, M. J., Bodien, Y. G., Giacino, J. T., Fins, J. J., Truog, R. D., Hochberg, L. R., & Edlow, B. L. (2021) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awab290 · Cited by 95
“One exception to this is the field of implanted brain–computer interfaces, where there is potential to enable rich efferent communication by people otherwise completely locked-in.(38) These same technologies may, in the future, similarly be used diagnostically, as the restoration of reliable and verifiable communicati…”
BackgroundSelf-citationInterim 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
Self-citationClawson, W. P., & Levin, M. G. (2022) · Biological Journal of the Linnean Society · doi:10.1093/biolinnean/blac073 · Cited by 76
The science and engineering behind sensitized brain-controlled bionic hands
Pandarinath, C., & Bensmaïa, S. J. (2021) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00034.2020 · Cited by 79
“…Nuyujukian* et al. 2017 [38] Intracortical (Utah array) Point-and - click (grid) T6, T7, T5 ALS (2), SCI (1) 2.4 2.4 “ “ “ T5 SCI 4.2* 4.2* Willett et al. 2021 [4] Intracortical (Utah array) Handwriting T5 SCI ~6.18** - Silversmith et al. 2021 [245] ECoG Point-and - click (grid) B1…”
InfluentialWillsey, M. S., Shah, N. P., Avansino, D. T., Hahn, N. V., Jamiolkowski, R. M., Kamdar, F. B., Hochberg, L. R., Willett, F. R., & Henderson, J. M. (2025) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03341-8 · Cited by 103
“27.”
Self-citationModulating Brain Activity with Invasive Brain–Computer Interface: A Narrative Review
Zhao, Z., Nie, C., Jiang, C.-T., Cao, S.-H., Tian, K.-X., Yu, S., & Gu, J. (2023) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci13010134 · Cited by 87
“Using this invasive BCI, patients achieved a typing speed of 90 characters/min, with an online original accuracy of 94.1% and offline automatic correction accuracy of more than 99% [50], while the typing speed on typical smartphones is about 115 characters/min (see Figure 2).”
MethodInfluentialClassification of EEG signals using Transformer based deep learning and ensemble models
Zeynali, M., Seyedarabi, H., & Afrouzian, R. (2023) · Biomedical Signal Processing and Control · doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2023.105130 · Cited by 79
In‐Sensor Computing with Visual‐Tactile Perception Enabled by Mechano‐Optical Artificial Synapse
Guo, J., Guo, F., Zhao, H., Yang, H., Du, X., Fan, F., Liu, W., Zhang, Y., Tu, D., & Hao, J. (2025) · Advanced Materials · doi:10.1002/adma.202419405 · Cited by 79
Deep learning approaches for neural decoding across architectures and recording modalities
Livezey, J. A., & Glaser, J. I. (2020) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbaa355 · Cited by 94
Vorontsova, D., Menshikov, I., Zubov, A., Orlov, K., Rikunov, P., Zvereva, E., Flitman, L., Lanikin, A., Sokolova, A., Markov, S., et al. (2021) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s21206744 · Cited by 81
Hu, J., Small, H., Kean, H., Takahashi, A., Zekelman, L., Kleinman, D., Ryan, E., Nieto-Castañón, A., Ferreira, V., & Fedorenko, E. (2023) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhac350 · Cited by 73
A Human-Centric Metaverse Enabled by Brain-Computer Interface: A Survey
Zhu, H. Y., Hieu, N. Q., Hoang, D. T., Nguyen, D. N., & Lin, C. (2024) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2024.3387124 · Cited by 86
“A recent innovation is the research by [128], which explores decoding brain activity into text.”
BackgroundEEG-based brain-computer interface enables real-time robotic hand control at individual finger level
Ding, Y., Udompanyawit, C., Zhang, Y., & He, B. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-61064-x · Cited by 103
“Both invasive and noninvasive BCI systemshavebeendevelopedforbiologicallimbmanipulation 3 – 6 ,robotic device control 7 – 11 , and linguistic communication 12 – 15 .”
Going beyond primary motor cortex to improve brain–computer interfaces
Gallego, J. Á., Makin, T. R., & McDougle, S. D. (2022) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2021.12.006 · Cited by 75
“’ Yet despite the impressive advances in BCI technology over the past several years [2,6,7], even seemingly simple tasks such as controlling a computer cursor with a BCI turn out to be challenging, often more so than performing analogous tasks with a limb [8].”
BackgroundSignal acquisition of brain–computer interfaces: A medical-engineering crossover perspective review
Sun, Y., Chen, X., Liu, B., Liang, L., Wang, Y., Gao, S., & Gao, X. (2024) · Fundamental Research · doi:10.1016/j.fmre.2024.04.011 · Cited by 74
“In 2021, Willett et al. employed the BrainGate system to achieve a brain-to-text communication scheme by interpreting handwriting [146] .”
Recent applications of EEG-based brain-computer-interface in the medical field
Liu, X., Wang, W.-L., Liu, M., Chen, M., Pereira, T., Doda, D. Y., Ke, Y., Wang, S., Dong, W., Tong, X., et al. (2025) · Military Medical Research · doi:10.1186/s40779-025-00598-z · Cited by 90
“Figure 1 illustrates the overall process of BCIs, including rehabilitation applications [92], 3 daily communication methods [93], epilepsy monitoring and prediction [94, 95], sleep monitoring, 4 brain stimulation techniques for treat-ment, and other related applications.”
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. 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
“In recent years, iBCIs have attained impressive performance in a range of applications, including the control of anthropomorphic robotic arms, stimulation of paralyzed muscles to enable reaching and grasping, and even rapid decoding of handwriting 3–6 .”
Self-citationBrain control of bimanual movement enabled by recurrent neural networks
Deo, D. R., Willett, F. R., Avansino, D. T., Hochberg, L. R., Henderson, J. M., & Shenoy, K. V. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-51617-3 · Cited by 77
Self-citationClosed-loop stimulation using a multiregion brain-machine interface has analgesic effects in rodents
Sun, G., Zeng, F., McCartin, M., Zhang, Q., Xu, H., Liu, Y., Chen, Z. S., & Wang, J. (2022) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.abm5868 · Cited by 63
Volitional activation of remote place representations with a hippocampal brain–machine interface
Lai, C., Tanaka, S., Harris, T. D., & Lee, A. K. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adh5206 · Cited by 70
Gallego-Carracedo, C., Perich, M. G., Chowdhury, R. H., Miller, L. E., & Gallego, J. Á. (2022) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.73155 · Cited by 68
Decoding motor plans using a closed-loop ultrasonic brain–machine interface
Griggs, W. S., Norman, S. L., Deffieux, T., Segura, F., Osmanski, B.-F., Chau, G., Christopoulos, V., Liu, C. Y., Tanter, M., Shapiro, M. G., et al. (2023) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-023-01500-7 · Cited by 78
Kosnoff, J., Yu, K., Liu, C., & He, B. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-48576-8 · Cited by 64
“Invasive BCIs have demonstrated the ability to control a robotic arm 27 – 30 , decode speech 29,31,32 , and interpret handwriting 33 .”
Cortico-basal ganglia plasticity in motor learning
Roth, R. H., & Ding, J. (2024) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2024.06.014 · Cited by 77
“146,147 Overall, systems and behavioral studies of motor control and motor learning in human and non-human primates have yielded a rich and high-level understanding of the population-level encoding of movement parameters that can be exploited to control BCIs in patients with lost movement or speech…”
Vansteensel, M. J., Klein, E. P., van Thiel, G. J. M. W., Gaytant, M. A., Simmons, Z., Wolpaw, J. R., & Vaughan, T. M. (2022) · Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1007/s00415-022-11464-6 · Cited by 62
Ma, H., Liang, J., Qiu, J. R., Li, J., Ma, L., Sheng, H., Shao, M., Wang, Q., Li, F., Fu, Y., et al. (2023) · Advanced Materials · doi:10.1002/adma.202301218 · Cited by 61
Advocating for neurodata privacy and neurotechnology regulation
Yuste, R. (2023) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/s41596-023-00873-0 · Cited by 75
Shared Control of Bimanual Robotic Limbs With a Brain-Machine Interface for Self-Feeding
Handelman, D. A., Osborn, L. E., Thomas, T. M., Badger, A. R., Thompson, M. C., Nickl, R. W., Anaya, M. A., Wormley, J. M., Cantarero, G. L., McMullen, D. P., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Neurorobotics · doi:10.3389/fnbot.2022.918001 · Cited by 61
“Cortical BMIs can be used to restore function by decoding neural signals for a variety of applications including handwriting (Willett et al., 2021), restoring speech (Moses et al.”
BackgroundThe unbearable slowness of being: Why do we live at 10 bits/s?
Zheng, J., & Meister, M. (2024) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2024.11.008 · Cited by 73
“These systems have demonstrated some interesting capabilities, for example, a recent benchmark-setting BCI can decode intended handwriting at 90 English characters per minute, or 1.5 bits/s [56].”
InfluentialZhang, J., Li, J., Huang, Z., Huang, D., Yu, H., & Li, Z. (2023) · Health Data Science · doi:10.34133/hds.0096 · Cited by 66
Artificial Intelligence for Metaverse: A Framework
Guo, Y., Yu, T., Wu, J., Wang, Y., Wan, S., Zheng, J., Fang, L., & Dai, Q. (2022) · CAAI Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.26599/air.2022.9150004 · Cited by 66
The Effect of Time Window Length on EEG-Based Emotion Recognition
Ouyang, D., Yuan, Y., Li, G., & Guo, Z. (2022) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s22134939 · Cited by 53
“In addition, the characteristics of EEG signals related to some specific events will change over time, making EEG-based recognition more difficult and requiring calibration before application [27].”
BackgroundA Complete Scheme for Multi-Character Classification Using EEG Signals From Speech Imagery
Pan, H., Wang, Y., Li, Z., Chu, X., Teng, B., & Gao, H. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2024.3376603 · Cited by 57
“Brain– computer interface (BCI) technology has the potential to restore communication abilities for individuals who have lost their ability to speak [2].”
BackgroundPelkonen, A., Pistono, C., Klecki, P., Gómez‐Budia, M., Dougalis, A., Konttinen, H., Stanová, I., Fagerlund, I., Leinonen, V., Korhonen, P., et al. (2021) · Cells · doi:10.3390/cells11010106 · Cited by 54
“This may skew our knowledge of brains unaffected by seizures, even though some data also originate from BMIs implanted in spinal cord injury patients [11,56].”
BackgroundAdvanced Electrode Technologies for Noninvasive Brain–Computer Interfaces
Lin, S., Jiang, J., Huang, K., Li, L., He, X., Du, P. Y., Wu, Y., Liu, J., Li, X., Huang, Z., et al. (2023) · ACS Nano · doi:10.1021/acsnano.3c06781 · Cited by 54
Translation of neurotechnologies
Schalk, G., Brunner, P., Allison, B. Z., Soekadar, S. R., Guan, C., Denison, T., Rickert, J., & Miller, K. J. (2024) · Nature Reviews Bioengineering · doi:10.1038/s44222-024-00185-2 · Cited by 66
Formento, E., Botros, P., & Carmena, J. M. (2021) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ac35ac · Cited by 54
Decoding Depression Severity From Intracranial Neural Activity
Xiao, J., Provenza, N. R., Asfouri, J., Myers, J. C., Mathura, R. K., Metzger, B. A., Adkinson, J. A., Allawala, A. B., Pirtle, V., Oswalt, D. N., et al. (2023) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2023.01.020 · Cited by 50
Nonlinear manifolds underlie neural population activity during behaviourPreprint
Fortunato, C., Bennasar-Vázquez, J., Park, J., Chang, J. C., Miller, L. E., Dudman, J. T., Perich, M. G., & Gallego, J. Á. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.07.18.549575 · Cited by 53
Interpretable Passive Multi-Modal Sensor Fusion for Human Identification and Activity Recognition
Yuan, L., Andrews, J., Mu, H., Vakil, A., Ewing, R. L., Blasch, E., & Li, J. (2022) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s22155787 · Cited by 54
“RNNs have shown success in a variety of additional human recognition applications such as gesture recognition [26], gait analysis [27], and translation [28].”
BackgroundNeuron devices: emerging prospects in neural interfaces and recognition
Wang, Y., Liu, S., Wang, H., Zhao, Y., & Zhang, X. (2022) · Microsystems & Nanoengineering · doi:10.1038/s41378-022-00453-4 · Cited by 54
Zhang, S., Suresh, L., Yang, J., Zhang, X., & Tan, S. C. (2022) · Advanced Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1002/aisy.202100194 · Cited by 56
Inner 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
“Such an approach could be preferred by some BCI users with partial paralysis since attempted speech requires activation of orofacial muscles and breath control that can be fatiguing and produces distracting vocalizations.”
Self-citationTen-Hour Stable Noninvasive Brain-Computer Interface Realized by Semidry Hydrogel-Based Electrodes
Liu, J., Lin, S., Li, W., Zhao, Y., Liu, D., He, Z., Wang, D., Lei, M., Hong, B., & Wu, H. (2022) · Research · doi:10.34133/2022/9830457 · Cited by 48
Soroush, P. Z., Herff, C., Ries, S. K., Shih, J. J., Schultz, T., & Krusienski, D. J. (2023) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.119913 · Cited by 48
Bergeron, D., Iorio‐Morin, C., Bonizzato, M., Lajoie, G., Gaucher, N. O., Racine, É., & Weil, A. G. (2023) · Journal of Child Neurology · doi:10.1177/08830738231167736 · Cited by 50
“To improve the typing rate of language braincomputer interface, many researchers have restricted the number of possible words and relied on the use of some kind of “predictions” or “autocorrect” based on syntactic structure.(28,34) This may restrain the way patients express themselves, with limited access to nuanced,…”
MethodBrain–computer interface digital prescription for neurological disorders
Chai, X., Cao, T., He, Q., Wang, N., Zhang, X., Shan, X., Lv, Z., Tu, W., Yang, Y., & Zhao, J. (2024) · CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/cns.14615 · Cited by 51
Electrocorticogram (ECoG): Engineering Approaches and Clinical Challenges for Translational Medicine
Moon, H., Kwon, J., Eun, J., Chung, C. K., Kim, J. S., Chou, N., & Kim, S. (2024) · Advanced Materials Technologies · doi:10.1002/admt.202301692 · Cited by 54
Using adversarial networks to extend brain computer interface decoding accuracy over time
Ma, X., Rizzoglio, F., Bodkin, K. L., Perreault, E. J., Miller, L. E., & Kennedy, A. (2023) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.84296 · Cited by 54
An end-to-end CNN with attentional mechanism applied to raw EEG in a BCI classification task
Lashgari, E., Ott, J., Connelly, A., Baldi, P., & Maoz, U. (2021) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ac1ade · Cited by 48
Mechanoluminescent optical fiber sensors for human–computer interaction
Ren, B., Chen, B., Zhang, X., Wu, H., Fu, Y., & Peng, D. (2023) · 中国科学通报：英文版 · doi:10.1016/j.scib.2023.02.030 · Cited by 46
Integrated Memristor Network for Physiological Signal Processing
Cai, L., Yu, L., Yue, W., Zhu, Y., Yang, Z., Li, Y., Tao, Y., & Yang, Y. (2023) · Advanced Electronic Materials · doi:10.1002/aelm.202300021 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Willett, F. R., Avansino, D. T., Hochberg, L. R., Henderson, J. M., & Shenoy, K. V.
- Affiliations
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Willett, Francis R.
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2021-05-12
- Volume
- 593
- Issue
- 7858
- Pages
- 249-254
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- PMC
- PMC8163299
- OpenAlex
- W3161343553
- Semantic Scholar
- bebaab40b42e63cd7cef7b334e5f6bacdcccfc79
- Cited by
- 1,024
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 187 · 2025: 225 · 2024: 203 · 2023: 203 · 2022: 134 · 2021: 67
- FWCI
- 70.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- www.springer.com/tdm (vor)
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute
- U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (I01 RX002295, I50RX002864, B6453-R, N-2864-C)
- Massachusetts General Hospital
- Office of Research and Development (N2864C, B6453R)
- National Institutes of Health (5uh2ns095548-02, 5u01dc017844-06)
- Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Stanford University
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC009899, DC017844, R01DC014034, U01- DC017844)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (UH2-NS095548, U01NS098968, NS095548)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
- Keywords
- brain-computer interface, handwriting, text entry, motor cortex, intracortical recording, spinal cord injury, paralysis, real-time communication, typing speed
- MeSH terms
- Brain, Communication, Handwriting, Humans, Spinal Cord Injuries, Time Factors, Neural Networks, Computer, 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
