Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32317917›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2020

Decoding Imagined and Spoken Phrases From Non-invasive Neural (MEG) Signals.

Debadatta Dash, Paul Ferrari, Jun Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 119 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Neural Decoding of Spontaneous Overt and Intended Speech.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Debadatta DashDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States.
Paul FerrariMEG Lab, Dell Children's Medical Center, Austin, TX, United States.
Jun WangDepartment of Neurology, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States.
The University of Texas at Austin · US

Funding

Wearable silent speech technology to enhance impaired oral communicationR01DC016621 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI WANG, JUN · 2019 to 2023
$3.2M
Real-Time Articulation-to-Speech Mapping for Enhancing Impaired Oral CommunicationR03DC013990 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS · PI WANG, JUN · 2015 to 2017
$459k
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC016621NIDCD NIH HHS R03 DC013990
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Speech production is a hierarchical mechanism involving the synchronization of the brain and the oral articulators, where the intention of linguistic concepts is transformed into meaningful sounds. Individuals with locked-in syndrome (fully paralyzed but aware) lose their motor ability completely including articulation and even eyeball movement. The neural pathway may be the only option to resume a certain level of communication for these patients. Current brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) use patients' visual and attentional correlates to build communication, resulting in a slow communication rate (a few words per minute). Direct decoding of imagined speech from the neural signals (and then driving a speech synthesizer) has the potential for a higher communication rate. In this study, we investigated the decoding of five imagined and spoken phrases from single-trial, non-invasive magnetoencephalography (MEG) signals collected from eight adult subjects. Two machine learning algorithms were used. One was an artificial neural network (ANN) with statistical features as the baseline approach. The other was convolutional neural networks (CNNs) applied on the spatial, spectral and temporal features extracted from the MEG signals. Experimental results indicated the possibility to decode imagined and spoken phrases directly from neuromagnetic signals. CNNs were found to be highly effective with an average decoding accuracy of up to 93% for the imagined and 96% for the spoken phrases.

Indexed as

brain-computer interfaceconvolutional neural networkMEGneural technologyspeechwavelet

Identifiers

PMID32317917
PMCPMC7154084
OpenAlexW3015920691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.