SynthesisSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Systematic Review of EEG-Based Imagined Speech Classification Methods.
Synthesis in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence for brain-to-speech decoding in paralysis: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Pooled it
- Rethinking Brain-Computer Interfaces for Soft Robotic Systems: A Unified Framework and Perspective.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Imagined Speech Brain-Computer Interface: A Task-Oriented Review of Neural Decoding.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Global Trends in Research of Brain-Computer Interfaces in Neuroscience From 2014 to 2023: A Bibliometric Analysis.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2026Review
- EEG imagined speech neuro-signal preprocessing and deep learning classification.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- An EEG-based Imagined Speech Database for comparing Paradigm Designs.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Systematic review: progress in EEG-based speech imagery brain-computer interface decoding and encoding research.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review examines EEG-based imagined speech classification, emphasizing directional words essential for development in the brain-computer interface (BCI). This study employed a structured methodology to analyze approaches using public datasets, ensuring systematic evaluation and validation of results. This review highlights the feature extraction techniques that are pivotal to classification performance. These include deep learning, adaptive optimization, and frequency-specific decomposition, which enhance accuracy and robustness. Classification methods were explored by comparing traditional machine learning with deep learning and emphasizing the role of brain lateralization in imagined speech for effective recognition and classification. This study discusses the challenges of generalizability and scalability in imagined speech recognition, focusing on subject-independent approaches and multiclass scalability. Performance benchmarking across various datasets and methodologies revealed varied classification accuracies, reflecting the complexity and variability of EEG signals. This review concludes that challenges remain despite progress, particularly in classifying directional words. Future research directions include improved signal processing techniques, advanced neural network architectures, and more personalized, adaptive BCI systems. This review is critical for future efforts to develop practical communication tools for individuals with speech and motor impairments using EEG-based BCIs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.