Cited by 103EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringSpeech Recognition and Synthesis

Decoding spoken English from intracortical electrode arrays in dorsal precentral gyrus

Open access
Wilson, Guy H, Stavisky, Sergey D, Willett, Francis R, Avansino, Donald T, Kelemen, Jessica N, Hochberg, Leigh R, Henderson, Jaimie M, Druckmann, Shaul +1 more·2020·Journal of Neural Engineering

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Objective . To evaluate the potential of intracortical electrode array signals for brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) to restore lost speech, we measured the performance of decoders trained to discriminate a comprehensive basis set of 39 English phonemes and to synthesize speech sounds via a neural pattern matching method. We decoded neural correlates of spoken-out-loud words in the ‘hand knob’ area of precentral gyrus, a step toward the eventual goal of decoding attempted speech from ventral speech areas in patients who are unable to speak. Approach . Neural and audio data were recorded while two BrainGate2 pilot clinical trial participants, each with two chronically-implanted 96-electrode arrays, spoke 420 different words that broadly sampled English phonemes. Phoneme onsets were identified from audio recordings, and their identities were then classified from neural features consisting of each electrode’s binned action potential counts or high-frequency local field potential power. Speech synthesis was performed using the ‘Brain-to-Speech’ pattern matching method. We also examined two potential confounds specific to decoding overt speech: acoustic contamination of neural signals and systematic differences in labeling different phonemes’ onset times. Main results . A linear decoder achieved up to 29.3% classification accuracy (chance = 6%) across 39 phonemes, while an RNN classifier achieved 33.9% accuracy. Parameter sweeps indicated that performance did not saturate when adding more electrodes or more training data, and that accuracy improved when utilizing time-varying structure in the data. Microphonic contamination and phoneme onset differences modestly increased decoding accuracy, but could be mitigated by acoustic artifact subtraction and using a neural speech onset marker, respectively. Speech synthesis achieved r = 0.523 correlation between true and reconstructed audio. Significance . The ability to decode speech using intracortical electrode array signals from a nontraditional speech area suggests that placing electrode arrays in ventral speech areas is a promising direction for speech BCIs.

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/abbfef

Cites

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?

  • Recent studies achieved high-performance speech-decoding results by measuring relevant single-unit and multi-unit neuronal activity from multiple small cortical regions on the anterior precentral gyrus.

    “Recent studies have also achieved high-performance speech-decoding results15,16 by measuring relevant single-unit and multi-unit neuronal activity from multiple small (4 × 4 mm2 (ref. 83)) cortical regions on the anterior precentral gyrus15,16,52,98.”

    From The speech neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [98]

    The Methods describe two small Utah arrays in the dorsal precentral ‘hand knob’ area, and the Discussion reports speech-decoding performance comparable to ECoG studies. But the Methods say the spikes were not sorted into single units, and the Results say high-frequency local field potentials—not spike activity—gave the better decoding performance. The paper does not establish the claim’s specific anterior location or its characterization of the results as achieved by measuring single- and multi-unit activity. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 104 · Cited by 103

Authors
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.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Wilson, Guy H
  • Stavisky, Sergey D
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2020-11-11
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
066007
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W3109832790
Cited by
103
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 1
FWCI
6.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • MGH Deane Institute for Integrated Research on Atrial Fibrillation and Stroke
  • Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Service (B6453R)
  • Larry and Pamela Garlick
  • Division of Graduate Education (DGE-1656518)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01-EB028171)
  • Samuel and Betsy Reeves
  • Simons Foundation Collaboration on the Global Brain
  • A.P. Giannini Foundation
  • Stanford University (Regina Casper Graduate Fellowship)
  • Burroughs Wellcome Fund
  • Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute Interdisciplinary Scholars Fellowship
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01-DC014034)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • NICHDNCMRR (N01HD10018)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS066311)
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 › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
Keywords
brain-computer interface, speech recovery, phoneme classification, neural speech synthesis, local field potentials, action potential
MeSH terms
Electrodes, Hand, Humans, Language, Speech, 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