Cited by 25EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringMuscle activation and electromyography studies

Speech-related dorsal motor cortex activity does not interfere with iBCI cursor control

Open access
Stavisky, Sergey D, Willett, Francis R, Avansino, Donald T, Hochberg, Leigh R, Shenoy, Krishna V, Henderson, Jaimie M·2020·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

Objective . Speech-related neural modulation was recently reported in ‘arm/hand’ area of human dorsal motor cortex that is used as a signal source for intracortical brain–computer interfaces (iBCIs). This raises the concern that speech-related modulation might deleteriously affect the decoding of arm movement intentions, for instance by affecting velocity command outputs. This study sought to clarify whether or not speaking would interfere with ongoing iBCI use. Approach . A participant in the BrainGate2 iBCI clinical trial used an iBCI to control a computer cursor; spoke short words in a stand-alone speech task; and spoke short words during ongoing iBCI use. We examined neural activity in all three behaviors and compared iBCI performance with and without concurrent speech. Main results . Dorsal motor cortex firing rates modulated strongly during stand-alone speech, but this activity was largely attenuated when speaking occurred during iBCI cursor control using attempted arm movements. ‘Decoder-potent’ projections of the attenuated speech-related neural activity were small, explaining why cursor task performance was similar between iBCI use with and without concurrent speaking. Significance . These findings indicate that speaking does not directly interfere with iBCIs that decode attempted arm movements. This suggests that patients who are able to speak will be able to use motor cortical-driven computer interfaces or prostheses without needing to forgo speaking while using these devices.

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 · 10.1088/1741-2552/ab5b72

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Efforts to develop a speech neuroprosthesis are built largely on studies using data that are retrospectively analyzed from able-bodied speakers undergoing electrophysiological monitoring for clinical purposes.

    “Efforts to develop a speech neuroprosthesis are built largely on studies using data that are retrospectively analyzed from able-bodied speakers undergoing electrophysiological monitoring for clinical purposes 7-16 .”

    From An Accurate and Rapidly Calibrating Speech Neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Introduction discusses efforts to build speech BCIs, but does not say those efforts rely largely on retrospective analyses of recordings from able-bodied speakers undergoing clinical monitoring. The Methods describe a prospective research session with a participant with tetraplegia; searches for retrospective analyses and clinical monitoring did not establish the broader claim. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stavisky, S. D., Willett, F. R., Avansino, D. T., Hochberg, L. R., Shenoy, K. V., & Henderson, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
  • Stavisky, Sergey D
  • Willett, Francis R
  • Avansino, Donald T
  • Hochberg, Leigh R
  • Shenoy, Krishna V
  • Henderson, Jaimie M
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2020-02-01
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
016049
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W3004717339
Cited by
25
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Samuel and Betsy Reeves
  • Simons Foundation
  • MGH-Deane Institute for Integrated Research on Atrial Fibrillation and Stroke
  • Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Service (B6453R)
  • National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research (N01HD10018)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC009899)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (5R01MH09964703)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS066311)
  • Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute (Interdisciplinary Scholars Fellowship)
  • A. P. Giannini Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
Keywords
intracortical brain-computer interfaces, cursor control
MeSH terms
Aged, Cervical Vertebrae, Humans, Male, Motor Cortex, Movement, Pilot Projects, Psychomotor Performance, Speech, Spinal Cord Injuries, 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