EEG Classification of Covert Speech Using Regularized Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communication using brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) can be non-intuitive, often requiring the performance of a conversation-irrelevant task such as hand motor imagery. In this paper, the reliability of electroencephalography (EEG) signals in discriminating between different covert speech tasks is investigated. Twelve participants, across two sessions each, were asked to perform multiple iterations of three differing mental tasks for 10 s each: unconstrained rest or the mental repetition of the words “yes” or “no.” A multilayer perceptron (MLP) artificial neural network (ANN) was used to classify all three pairwise combinations of “yes,” “no,” and rest trials and also for ternary classification. An average accuracy of 75.7% ± 9.6 was reached in the classification of covert speech trials versus rest, with all participants exceeding chance level (57.8%). The classification of “yes” versus “no” yielded an average accuracy of 63.2 ± 6.4 with ten participants surpassing chance level (57.8%). Finally, the ternary classification yielded an average accuracy of 54.1% ± 9.7 with all participants exceeding chance level (39.1%). The proposed MLP network provided significantly higher accuracies compared to some of the most common classification techniques in BCI. To our knowledge, this is the first report of using ANN for the classification of EEG covert speech across multiple sessions. 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".