MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309114134 · doi:10.1101/2022.11.13.516334

Online decoding of covert speech based on the passive perception of speech

2022· preprint· en· W4309114134 on OpenAlexafffund
Jae Moon, Tom Chau

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersToronto Rehabilitation Institute
KeywordsCovertSpeech recognitionComputer scienceSecurity tokenSpeech perceptionPerceptionDecoding methodsBrain–computer interfaceVoice activity detectionSession (web analytics)Speech processingElectroencephalographyPsychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) can offer solutions to communicative impairments induced by conditions such as locked-in syndrome. While covert speech-based BCIs have garnered interest, a major issue facing their clinical translation is the collection of sufficient volumes of high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) examples of covert speech signals which can typically induce fatigue in users. Fortuitously, investigations into the linkage between covert speech and speech perception have revealed spatiotemporal similarities suggestive of shared encoding mechanisms. Here, we sought to demonstrate that an electroencephalographic cross-condition machine learning model of speech perception and covert speech can successfully decode neural speech patterns during online BCI scenarios. Methods In the current study, ten participants underwent a dyadic protocol whereby participants perceived the audio of a randomly chosen word and then subsequently mentally rehearsed it. Eight words were used during the offline sessions and subsequently narrowed down to three classes for the online session (two words, rest). The modelling was achieved by estimating a functional mapping derived from speech perception and covert speech signals of the same speech token (features were extracted via a Riemannian approach). Results While most covert speech BCIs deal with binary and offline classifications, we report an average ternary and online BCI accuracy of 75.3% (60% chance-level), reaching up to 93% in select participants. Moreover, we found that perception-covert modelling effectively enhanced the SNR of covert speech signals correlatively to their high-frequency correspondences. Conclusions These findings may pave the way to efficient and more user-friendly data collection for passively training such BCIs. Future iterations of this BCI can lead to a combination of audiobooks and unsupervised learning to train a non-trivial vocabulary that can support proto-naturalistic communication. Significance Statement Covert speech brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) provide new communication channels. However, these BCIs face practical challenges in collecting large volumes of high-quality covert speech data which can both induce fatigue and degrade BCI performance. This study leverages the reported spatiotemporal correspondences between covert speech and speech perception by deriving a functional mapping between them. While multiclass and online covert speech classification has previously been challenging, this study reports an average ternary and online classification accuracy of 75.3%, reaching up to 93% for select participants. Moreover, the current modelling approach augmented the signal-to-noise ratio of covert speech signals correlatively to their gamma-band correspondences. The proposed approach may pave the way toward a more efficient and user-friendly method of training covert speech BCIs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207