Relating the Neural Representations of Vocalized, Mimed, and Imagined Speech

Decoding covert speech, such as mimed or imagined, from brain activity is harder than decoding vocalized speech. Cross-modal transfer, where information from one speech form helps decode another, is a promising remedy; yet how a decoder internally represents and processes brain activity from different speech forms remains unclear. In this work, we ask: which internal neurons of a decoder carry cross-modal information, and are these neurons shared across different speech forms? To answer these questions, we leverage mechanistic interpretability, using recordings of the same sentences in vocalized, mimed, and imagined input pairs for activation patching. We insert the decoder's internal activity for a sentence in one condition into its processing of the same sentence in another and measure the change in decoding accuracy. We find that no single neuron drives this benefit; instead, it arises from small groups of neurons, with vocalized speech as the most useful source. These groups are largely condition-specific in the early stage of the decoder but overlap in the later stage. These findings point toward more data-efficient covert speech decoders through training objectives that encourage shared later-stage representations learned mainly from vocalized data.

Decoding imagined speech from non-invasive brain recordings is challenging because imagined datasets are scarce and difficult to align temporally across subjects and sessions In this work, we propose a new approach to the decoding of imagined speech that leverages the richer and more reliably labeled recordings during listening to speech. We collected paired listened and imagined MEG recordings to rhythmic melodic and spoken stimuli from trained musicians. Using trained musicians helped improve temporal alignment across conditions. We then developed a three-stage decoding pipeline that revealed consistent and meaningful relationships between neural activity evoked by imagining and listening to the same stimuli. First, we trained six linear and neural models to map imagined MEG responses to listened responses. We evaluated these models against a null baseline from unseen subjects to validate that the predicted-listening responses preserve stimulus-specific information. In the second stage, we trained a contrastive word decoder exclusively on the listened MEG responses, and evaluated it using four embedding strategies including semantic, acoustic, and phonetic representations. In the third stage, we process the imagined MEG responses from held-out subjects through the mapping pipeline to compute the corresponding listening responses that are then decoded by the listened decoder. Using rank-based analysis, we show that the imagined words are decodable significantly above chance. We shall report here the results of a proof-of-concept implementation to decode imagined speech, where all evaluations are performed on held-out subjects. We also demonstrate that performance improves with training data size, suggesting that this approach is scalable and can directly be made applicable to realistic brain-computer interface scenarios.

Objective. A decoder of imagined speech that works for a new user without calibration would make a non-invasive speech interface practical. We tested whether imagined-speech content recorded with scalp electroencephalography (EEG) transfers across people, and examined why accuracy within a single person remains low. Approach. We analyzed three public corpora, ds003626, KaraOne and Track 3 of the 2020 International Brain-Computer Interface Competition, under a protocol that enforces split integrity by assertion and reports exact binomial thresholds, group tests and bootstrap confidence intervals. We trained decoders on each participant and tested them on every other, compared representational geometry across participants without a classifier, applied subject-level alignment, and tested five explanations for the within-subject ceiling. Main results. Across 482 ordered pairs of participants, no pair survived correction for multiple comparisons; mean pair-transfer accuracy lay within 0.006 of chance on every corpus, while every within-subject reference lay above it. Imagery against pre-stimulus rest generalized at about 0.61 after artifact and elapsed-time controls, but its decoder labelled the interval preceding imagery as imagery as often as imagery itself, so the contrast reflects a post-stimulus state, not imagery. Within subject, only the competition corpus decoded above threshold for every participant (0.3147; chance 0.200); syllable count explained little of this, but its frequency profile failed an artifact audit. Significance. In these corpora, imagined-speech content did not transfer between people through any representation we examined. Trial count per class was the only variable that ordered the corpora, which favors larger single-condition datasets over further model development.