Cited by 321Speech Recognition and SynthesisEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesSpeech and Audio Processing

Machine translation of cortical activity to text with an encoder–decoder framework

Open access
Makin, Joseph G., Moses, David A., Chang, Edward F.·2020·Nature Neuroscience

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

A decade after speech was first decoded from human brain signals, accuracy and speed remain far below that of natural speech. Here we show how to decode the electrocorticogram with high accuracy and at natural-speech rates. Taking a cue from recent advances in machine translation, we train a recurrent neural network to encode each sentence-length sequence of neural activity into an abstract representation, and then to decode this representation, word by word, into an English sentence. For each participant, data consist of several spoken repeats of a set of 30-50 sentences, along with the contemporaneous signals from ~250 electrodes distributed over peri-Sylvian cortices. Average word error rates across a held-out repeat set are as low as 3%. Finally, we show how decoding with limited data can be improved with transfer learning, by training certain layers of the network under multiple participants' data.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41593-020-0608-8

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • In previous multiparticipant studies in able speakers, participants had near-identical speech capacity.

    “By contrast, in previous multiparticipant studies in able speakers, participants had near-identical speech capacity106,108,136–138.”

    From The speech neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [108]

    The Methods (Task; page not provided) say that participants read sentences aloud, supporting the description of this as a multiparticipant study of able speakers. Neither that section nor the Methods participant description (page not provided) establishes that their speech capacities were near-identical. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Transfer learning between individuals or between different types of speech within the same individual may expedite decoder training.

    “Transfer learning, either between individuals108 or different types of speech within the same individual120, may also be used to expedite decoder training.”

    From The speech neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [108]

    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)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Makin et al. applied an RNN encoder-decoder framework to encode temporal patterns in neural activity during sentence production into an abstract representation that was then decoded word-by-word into phrases.

    “To build on this result and move beyond direct classification of words or sentences, Makin et al.108 applied a recurrent neural network (RNN) encoder-decoder framework to encode temporal patterns in neural activity during sentence production into an abstract representation that was then decoded word-by-word into phrases (Fig. 1; Makin et al. 2020).”

    From The speech neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [108]

  • Speech-decoding BCIs show promise for rapid communication, but their accuracy and vocabulary size still need improvement for general-purpose use.

    “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.”

    From High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting (2021) · cites this paper as [17]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [14]Wrench AA A multichannel articulatory database and its application for automatic speech recognition. In Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of Speech Production (ed. Hoole P) 305– 308 (Institut für Phonetik und Sprachliche Kommunikation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, 2000).
  2. [23]Schalkwyk J. in Advances in Speech Recognition (ed. Neustein A) 61– 90 (Springer, 2010).
  3. [34]Bahdanau D. Cho K. & Bengio Y. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. In International Conference on Learning Representations (eds Bengio Y. & LeCun Y) 1– 15 (ICLR, 2015).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Makin, J. G., Moses, D. A., & Chang, E. F.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
  • Makin, Joseph G.
  • Chang, Edward F.
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2020-03-30
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
575-582
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W3013691153
Cited by
321
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 1
FWCI
19.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (U01 NS098971)
  • Facebook Sponsored Academic Research Agreement
  • Facebook (Sponsored Academic Research Agreement)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
Keywords
neural speech decoding, electrocorticography, machine translation, encoder-decoder architecture, recurrent neural networks, cortical activity, transfer learning, word error rate, brain-computer interface
MeSH terms
Electrocorticography, Adult, Brain, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Speech, Speech Perception, 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.

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