Online EEG Classification of Covert Speech for Brain–Computer Interfacing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) for communication can be nonintuitive, often requiring the performance of hand motor imagery or some other conversation-irrelevant task. In this paper, electroencephalography (EEG) was used to develop two intuitive online BCIs based solely on covert speech. The goal of the first BCI was to differentiate between 10[Formula: see text]s of mental repetitions of the word "no" and an equivalent duration of unconstrained rest. The second BCI was designed to discern between 10[Formula: see text]s each of covert repetition of the words "yes" and "no". Twelve participants used these two BCIs to answer yes or no questions. Each participant completed four sessions, comprising two offline training sessions and two online sessions, one for testing each of the BCIs. With a support vector machine and a combination of spectral and time-frequency features, an average accuracy of [Formula: see text] was reached across participants in the online classification of no versus rest, with 10 out of 12 participants surpassing the chance level (60.0% for [Formula: see text]). The online classification of yes versus no yielded an average accuracy of [Formula: see text], with eight participants exceeding the chance level. Task-specific changes in EEG beta and gamma power in language-related brain areas tended to provide discriminatory information. To our knowledge, this is the first report of online EEG classification of covert speech. Our findings support further study of covert speech as a BCI activation task, potentially leading to the development of more intuitive BCIs for communication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".