| Literature DB >> 29977189 |
Stephanie Martin1,2, Iñaki Iturrate1, José Del R Millán1, Robert T Knight2,3, Brian N Pasley2.
Abstract
Certain brain disorders resulting from brainstem infarcts, traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy, stroke, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, limit verbal communication despite the patient being fully aware. People that cannot communicate due to neurological disorders would benefit from a system that can infer internal speech directly from brain signals. In this review article, we describe the state of the art in decoding inner speech, ranging from early acoustic sound features, to higher order speech units. We focused on intracranial recordings, as this technique allows monitoring brain activity with high spatial, temporal, and spectral resolution, and therefore is a good candidate to investigate inner speech. Despite intense efforts, investigating how the human cortex encodes inner speech remains an elusive challenge, due to the lack of behavioral and observable measures. We emphasize various challenges commonly encountered when investigating inner speech decoding, and propose potential solutions in order to get closer to a natural speech assistive device.Entities:
Keywords: brain-computer interface; decoding; electrocorticography; inner speech; neuroprosthetics
Year: 2018 PMID: 29977189 PMCID: PMC6021529 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00422
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
Figure 1Electrocorticographic recordings. Example of electrocorticographic grid locations overlaid on cortical surface reconstructions of a subject's MRI scan (A). Examples of single trial high frequency activity (HFA) for an electrode highlighted in black in (A). Single trials represent examples of overt speech word repetition (B) and inner speech word repetition (C).
Figure 2Decoding framework. The general framework for fitting a decoding model is depicted. The first step consists in designing a protocol (A) and recording the data (B). Then, input and output features are extracted (C), and the data are split in training and testing set. The training set is used to fit the weights of the model and the testing set is used to validated the model (D). Figures adapted from Holdgraf et al. (2017) with permissions.
Figure 3Decoded inner speech representation. (A) Examples of overt speech and inner speech spectrogram reconstruction using linear regression models. Original spectrogram of the recorded overt speech sound is displayed (top panel). Reconstruction of the spectrogram for the overt speech condition (middle panel) and inner speech condition (bottom panel). (B) Examples of word pair classification during inner speech (left panel). Chance level was 50% (diagonal elements), whereas pairwise classification accuracy (off-diagonal elements) reached 88% and was significantly above chancel level across the 15 pairs of word (mean = 69%). Discriminant information displayed on the surface reconstruction of the participant's brain (right panel) for the classification accuracy shown in the left panel. Figures adapted from Martin et al. (2014, 2016) with permissions.