Back

Neural decoding of speech using deep neural ensembles

Yoon, S.; Avansino, D. T.; Madugula, S.; Levin, A. D.; Fan, C.; Abramovich Krasa, B.; Singh, A.; Vo, C.; Hahn, N. V.; Card, N. S.; Fogg, Z.; Wairagkar, M.; Nason-Tomaszewski, S. R.; Jacques, B. G.; Bechefsky, P. H.; Iacobacci, C.; Deo, D. R.; Hochberg, L. R.; Brandman, D. M.; Stavisky, S. D.; Au Yong, N.; Pandarinath, C.; Henderson, J. M.; Willett, F. R.

2026-06-04 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.06.02.729705 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Speech brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) can restore rapid communication to people with paralysis, but decoding errors still limit performance. In recent brain-to-text decoding competitions, deep ensemble methods, which combine predictions from multiple independently trained decoders, have delivered striking accuracy improvements and account for the largest gains over baseline approaches. However, these methods have not previously been tested in real-time, require substantial computational resources, and their performance under various clinically relevant constraints remains poorly understood. Here, we present the first closed-loop test of deep ensembles in a participant with bilateral intracortical microelectrode arrays, demonstrating a reduction in word error rate from 33.7% to 26.0% on a large-vocabulary task. Using additional data from three participants, we then assess how these gains depend on baseline error rate, training dataset size, and ensemble size, including the resource-accuracy tradeoffs most relevant for real-world deployment. Finally, we introduce a computationally efficient pseudoensembling approach based on test-time augmentation that improves decoding accuracy while requiring only a single base decoder, greatly reducing the computational burden of ensembling. Together, these results show that the benefits of deep ensembling can be realized in real time and under practical resource constraints, bringing speech BCIs closer to broader clinical adoption.

Matching journals

The top 5 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.