MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Deep Spatio-Temporal Model for EEG-Based Imagined Speech Recognition

2021· article· en· W3163016414 on OpenAlexaff
Pradeep Kumar, Erik Scheme

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSpeech recognitionGeneralizationConvolutional neural networkBrain–computer interfaceInterface (matter)ElectroencephalographyVariety (cybernetics)Artificial intelligenceLong short term memoryArchitectureRecurrent neural networkDeep learningArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic speech recognition interfaces are becoming increasingly pervasive in daily life as a means of interacting with and controlling electronic devices. Current speech interfaces, however, are infeasible for a variety of users and use cases, such as patients who suffer from locked-in syndrome or those who need privacy. In these cases, an interface that works based on envisioned speech, the idea of imagining what one wants to say, could be of benefit. Consequently, in this work, we propose an imagined speech Brain-Computer-Interface (BCI) using Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals. EEG signals are processed using a deep spatio-temporal learning architecture with 1D Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), respectively. LSTM units are implemented in a many-to-many fashion to produce a time series of imagined speech outputs. Using this series, the performance of the system is boosted using majority vote (MV) post-processing to further improve results. The performance is evaluated on two publicly available datasets; one to test the performance of the tuned model, and another to test its generalization to a new dataset. The proposed architecture outperforms previous results with improvements of up to 23.7%.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207