Cited by 195EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesPhonetics and Phonology ResearchTactile and Sensory Interactions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Direct classification of all American English phonemes using signals from functional speech motor cortex

Open access

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) can be used in several different ways to restore communication, communicative BCI has not approached the rate or efficiency of natural human speech. Electrocorticography (ECoG) has precise spatiotemporal resolution that enables recording of brain activity distributed over a wide area of cortex, such as during speech production. In this study, we sought to decode elements of speech production using ECoG. APPROACH: We investigated words that contain the entire set of phonemes in the general American accent using ECoG with four subjects. Using a linear classifier, we evaluated the degree to which individual phonemes within each word could be correctly identified from cortical signal. MAIN RESULTS: We classified phonemes with up to 36% accuracy when classifying all phonemes and up to 63% accuracy for a single phoneme. Further, misclassified phonemes follow articulation organization described in phonology literature, aiding classification of whole words. Precise temporal alignment to phoneme onset was crucial for classification success. SIGNIFICANCE: We identified specific spatiotemporal features that aid classification, which could guide future applications. Word identification was equivalent to information transfer rates as high as 3.0 bits s(-1) (33.6 words min(-1)), supporting pursuit of speech articulation for BCI control.

Overview

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 · 10.1088/1741-2560/11/3/035015

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 34 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Pei X, 2011, J. Neural Eng., 8
  2. Bin G, 2011, J. Neural Eng., 8
  3. 10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00057-3 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mugler, E. M., Patton, J. L., Flint, R. D., Wright, Z. A., Schuele, S. U., Rosenow, J., Shih, J. J., Krusienski, D. J., & Slutzky, M. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Old Dominion University (US)
Corresponding author
Mugler, Emily M
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2014-05-19
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
035015
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W2151544568
Cited by
192
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2
FWCI
7.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ODU Digital Commons (Old Dominion University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB000856, NIBIB/NINDS EB00856)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
phoneme classification, electrocorticography, brain-computer interface, speech production, word recognition, information transfer rate, spatio-temporal features, temporal alignment, phonological structure, communication restoration
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Communication Aids for Disabled, Communication Devices for People with Disabilities, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Language, Male, Motor Cortex, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Sound Spectrography, Speech, Speech Acoustics, Speech Production Measurement, Translating, United States, User-Computer Interface, Speech Recognition Software, 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