Cited by 114EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringVoice and Speech Disorders

Classification of intended phoneme production from chronic intracortical microelectrode recordings in speech-motor cortex

Open access
Brumberg·2011·Frontiers in Neuroscience

Abstract

We conducted a neurophysiological study of attempted speech production in a paralyzed human volunteer using chronic microelectrode recordings. The volunteer suffers from locked-in syndrome leaving him in a state of near-total paralysis, though he maintains good cognition and sensation. In this study, we investigated the feasibility of supervised classification techniques for prediction of intended phoneme production in the absence of any overt movements including speech. Such classification or decoding ability has the potential to greatly improve the quality-of-life of many people who are otherwise unable to speak by providing a direct communicative link to the general community. We examined the performance of three classifiers on a multi-class discrimination problem in which the items were 38 American English phonemes including monophthong and diphthong vowels and consonants. The three classifiers differed in performance, but averaged between 16 and 21% overall accuracy (chance-level is 1/38 or 2.6%). Further, the distribution of phonemes classified statistically above chance was non-uniform though 20 of 38 phonemes were classified with statistical significance for all three classifiers. These preliminary results suggest supervised classification techniques are capable of performing large scale multi-class discrimination for attempted speech production and may provide the basis for future communication prostheses.

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 · 10.3389/fnins.2011.00065

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • First efforts towards a speech neuroprosthesis for an individual with vocal-tract paralysis used an intracortical neurotrophic microelectrode placed in the precentral gyrus, allowing above-chance synthesis of vowel formants and decoding of phonemes.

    “The first efforts towards a speech neuroprosthesis for an individual with vocal-tract paralysis, developed by Phil Kennedy and Frank Guenther, used an intracortical neurotrophic microelectrode placed in the precentral gyrus, which allowed above-chance synthesis of vowel formants84 and decoding of phonemes85 (Fig. 1; Guenther et al. 2009 and Brumberg et al. 2011).”

    From The speech neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [85]

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. Blankertz B. Krauledat M. Dornhege G. Williamson J. Murray-Smith R. Müller K.-R. (2007). “A note on brain actuated spelling with the Berlin brain-computer interface,” in Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Ambient Interaction, ed. Stephanidis C. (Heidelberg: Springer), 759– 768
  2. Kennedy P. R. (2006). “Comparing electrodes for use as cortical control signals: tiny tines or tiny cones on wires: which is best?” in The Biomedical Engineering Handbook, 3rd Edn, ed. Brazino J. D. (Boca Raton: CRC/Taylor & Francis), 32.1– 32.14
  3. Stevens K. N. (2000). Acoustic Phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brumberg
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Published
2011-05-12
Volume
5
Pages
65-65
ISSN
1662-453X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2118949016
Cited by
114
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • KU ScholarWorks (University of Kansas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • OpenBU (Boston University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Center of Excellence for Learning in Education, Science and Technology
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R44DC007050, R01DC002852)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
Keywords
phoneme classification, intracortical microelectrodes, locked-in syndrome, brain-computer interface, paralysis

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