Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31019317›Full record

ArticleNature2019

Speech synthesis from neural decoding of spoken sentences.

Gopala K Anumanchipalli, Josh Chartier, Edward F Chang

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 273 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
273citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
54.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

273 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 870 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. In conversation with Edward Chang.Nature neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Active inference and speech motor control.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026
    Review
  18. Distinct laminar origins of sensory-evoked high-gamma and low-frequency ECoG signals revealed by optogenetics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

213 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gopala K Anumanchipalli *Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Josh Chartier *Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Edward F ChangDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Edward.Chang@ucsf.edu.
Neurological Surgery · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Functional Architecture of Speech Motor CortexU01NS098971 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI CHANG, EDWARD · 2016 to 2018
$3.5M
Functional Architecture of Human Speech Motor CortexDP2OD008627 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI CHANG, EDWARD · 2011 to 2011
$2.3M
NIH HHS DP2 OD008627NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS098971
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Technology that translates neural activity into speech would be transformative for people who are unable to communicate as a result of neurological impairments. Decoding speech from neural activity is challenging because speaking requires very precise and rapid multi-dimensional control of vocal tract articulators. Here we designed a neural decoder that explicitly leverages kinematic and sound representations encoded in human cortical activity to synthesize audible speech. Recurrent neural networks first decoded directly recorded cortical activity into representations of articulatory movement, and then transformed these representations into speech acoustics. In closed vocabulary tests, listeners could readily identify and transcribe speech synthesized from cortical activity. Intermediate articulatory dynamics enhanced performance even with limited data. Decoded articulatory representations were highly conserved across speakers, enabling a component of the decoder to be transferrable across participants. Furthermore, the decoder could synthesize speech when a participant silently mimed sentences. These findings advance the clinical viability of using speech neuroprosthetic technology to restore spoken communication.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerSpeech AcousticsAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaCerebral CortexFemaleHumansMaleMovementSpeechSpeech Articulation TestsSpeech Intelligibility

Identifiers

PMID31019317
PMCPMC9714519
OpenAlexW2940585064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.