Classification of Phonological Categories in Imagined Speech using Phase Synchronization Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phonological categories in articulated speech are defined based on the place and manner of articulation. In this work, we investigate whether the phonological categories of the prompts imagined during speech imagery lead to differences in phase synchronization in various cortical regions that can be discriminated from the EEG captured during the imagination. Nasal and bilabial consonant are the two phonological categories considered due to their differences in both place and manner of articulation. Mean phase coherence (MPC) is used for measuring the phase synchronization and shallow neural network (NN) is used as the classifier. As a benchmark, we have also designed another NN based on statistical parameters extracted from imagined speech EEG. The NN trained on MPC values in the beta band gives classification results superior to NN trained on alpha band MPC values, gamma band MPC values and statistical parameters extracted from the EEG.Clinical relevance: Brain-computer interface (BCI) is a promising tool for aiding differently-abled people and for neurorehabilitation. One of the challenges in designing speech imagery based BCI is the identification of speech prompts that can lead to distinct neural activations. We have shown that nasal and blilabial consonants lead to dissimilar activations. Hence prompts orthogonal in these phonological categories are good choices as speech imagery prompts.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".