Back

Continuous and discrete decoding of overt speech with electroencephalography

Craik, A. R.; Dial, H.; Contreras-Vidal, J. L.

2024-05-23 neuroscience
10.1101/2024.05.23.595510 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Neurological disorders affecting speech production adversely impact quality of life for over 7 million individuals in the US. Traditional speech interfaces like eye-tracking devices and P300 spellers are slow and unnatural for these patients. An alternative solution, speech Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs), directly decodes speech characteristics, offering a more natural communication mechanism. This research explores the feasibility of decoding speech features using non-invasive EEG. Nine neurologically intact participants were equipped with a 63-channel EEG system with additional sensors to eliminate eye artifacts. Participants read aloud sentences displayed on a screen selected for phonetic similarity to the English language. Deep learning models, including Convolutional Neural Networks and Recurrent Neural Networks with/without attention modules, were optimized with a focus on minimizing trainable parameters and utilizing small input window sizes. These models were employed for discrete and continuous speech decoding tasks, achieving above-chance participant-independent decoding performance for discrete classes and continuous characteristics of the produced audio signal. A frequency sub-band analysis highlighted the significance of certain frequency bands (delta, theta, and gamma) for decoding performance, and a perturbation analysis identified crucial channels. Assessed channel selection methods did not significantly improve performance, but they still outperformed chance levels, suggesting a distributed representation of speech information encoded in the EEG signals. Leave-One-Out training demonstrated the feasibility of utilizing common speech neural correlates, reducing data collection requirements from individual participants.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.