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.
Figures & tables
Corpus
Task
Classes
Trials per class
Participants
2020 BCI Competition, Track 3
imagined phrases
5
80
15
ds003626
inner-speech words
4
about 56
10
ds003626
pronounced words
4
about 28
10
KaraOne
imagined words
4
about 12
14
KaraOne
phonemes, imagined and pre-imagery
7
varies
14
KaraOne
binary phonological contrasts
2
varies
14
Table 1: Decoding tasks. Trials per class are per participant. For ds003626 the inner-speech condition is the primary task and the pronounced condition is reported for comparison.
Result
Accuracy
Chance
Null mean
Null 95th pct
KaraOne, imagery vs rest, 5.0 s gap
0.6475
0.500
0.4988
0.5133
KaraOne, imagery vs rest, 2.0 s gap
0.6099
0.500
0.4998
0.5128
KaraOne, rest vs pre-imagery
0.6646
0.500
0.4996
0.5163
KaraOne, pre-imagery vs imagery
0.6122
0.500
0.4999
0.5142
ds003626, three-way condition
0.6065
0.333
0.3317
0.3453
Competition, within subject, band power
0.3147
0.200
0.1969
0.2057
Table 2: Shuffle-label controls for the positive results reported in this paper. Accuracy is the value measured in this study. Labels were permuted within participant and the pipeline re-run 200 times, or 50 times for the network, whose every draw is a full retraining. No null draw reached the observed value in any row, so each empirical p equals its minimum of 1/(n+1) : 0.005 for 200 draws and 0.020 for 50.
Corpus and task
Protocol
Decoder
Accuracy
Macro-F1
Threshold
n≥
p [95% CI]
Competition, 5 phrases
5-fold
band power
0.3273
0.3270
0.235
14/15
0.0003 [0.305, 0.349]
held out
band power
0.3147
0.3142
0.235
15/15
< 0.0001 [0.294, 0.336]
LOSO
band power
0.2063
0.1796
0.235
2/15
0.2567 [0.191, 0.222]
ds003626, 4 words, inner
5-fold
band power
0.2595
0.2595
0.305
2/10
0.2695 [0.237, 0.288]
held out
band power
0.2788
0.2729
0.305
2/10
0.0137 [0.261, 0.300]
LOSO
band power
0.2590
0.2116
0.305
0/10
0.0947 [0.247, 0.270]
Table 3: Content decoding with the reference decoder. All values were measured in this study; accuracy is the mean over participants. “5-fold” pools sessions and is optimistic; “held out” tests on an unseen session (ds003626) or an unseen block of trials (other corpora). Chance is 0.200 for the five phrases, 0.250 for the four-word tasks and 0.143 for the seven phonemes. Threshold is the exact binomial per-participant threshold at α=0.05 ; n≥ is the number of participants at or above it; p is the one-sided Wilcoxon test against chance; CI is the bootstrap 95% confidence interval.
Corpus
Protocol
Band
Pairs
Accuracy
Threshold
Pairs surviving FDR [95% CI]
Competition
within
8–13 Hz
10
0.5577
0.569
10/10 [0.538, 0.569]
within
8–30 Hz
10
0.5853
0.569
10/10 [0.557, 0.600]
within
30–45 Hz
10
0.6539
0.569
10/10 [0.631, 0.671]
LOSO
8–13 Hz
10
0.5108
0.569
0/10 [0.503, 0.520]
LOSO
8–30 Hz
10
0.5107
0.569
1/10 [0.500, 0.519]
LOSO
30–45 Hz
10
0.5115
0.569
0/10 [0.504, 0.519]
Table 4: Pairwise word separability on matched 128 Hz, 1–45 Hz data. Chance is 0.500. Mean accuracy is over pairs; the CI treats participants as the unit, averaging each participant over pairs first. FDR correction is within each corpus.
Figure 1: Pairwise word separability by corpus, band and protocol. Each box summarizes one value per participant, that participant’s accuracy averaged over the corpus’s word pairs. The box spans the interquartile range, the center line is the median, the diamond is the mean, whiskers extend to 1.5 times the interquartile range and circles mark participants beyond them; fill and hatching identify the band. The dashed line is chance and the dotted segments each corpus’s per-participant threshold.
Figure 2: Every phrase pair of the competition corpus, within subject (top) and across participants (bottom), in four bands. Each box summarizes the 15 participants, drawn as in figure 1 . The dashed line is chance and the dotted line the per-participant threshold (0.569).
Corpus
Alignment
Accuracy
Change
n≥
Wilcoxon p
Competition
none
0.2080
–
3/15
0.0956
Euclidean, inductive 10
0.2063
− 0.0017
2/15
0.2131
Euclidean, inductive 20
0.2122
+ 0.0042
3/15
0.0625
Euclidean, inductive 40
0.2055
− 0.0025
2/15
0.2534
Euclidean, transductive
0.2013
− 0.0067
1/15
0.4129
Riemannian
0.2052
− 0.0028
2/15
0.3661
Table 5: Cross-subject decoding with subject-level alignment (LOSO, band power, 8–30 Hz). Every alignment is fitted per participant from that participant’s unlabeled trials; “inductive K ” uses only the first K trials. Per-participant thresholds are 0.235 (competition), 0.305 (ds003626) and 0.367 (KaraOne). Change is relative to no alignment.
Pair transfer
Representational similarity
Corpus
Pairs
Within
Transfer
Chance
≥ threshold
FDR
Mean r
Null 95th pct
p
Competition
210
0.3273
0.1996
0.200
14/210
0/210
+ 0.0403
+ 0.0601
0.1095
ds003626 inner
90
0.2595
0.2448
0.250
0/90
0/90
− 0.0311
+ 0.1176
0.5920
KaraOne
182
0.2986
0.2527
0.250
1/182
0/182
+ 0.0179
+ 0.1028
0.2985
Table 6: Transfer between individual participants and classifier-free representational similarity. The within-subject reference is 5-fold cross-validation computed in the pair-transfer run; for KaraOne it differs from table 3 in the fourth decimal (0.2986 against 0.2985). Representational similarity is the mean Spearman correlation between participants’ dissimilarity matrices over 105, 45 and 91 participant pairs, built from Riemannian distances between class-mean covariances, against a null that permutes labels within participant (200 permutations).
Figure 3: Accuracy of decoders trained on one participant and tested on another (hatched bars, one value per ordered pair), against each participant’s within-subject accuracy (outlined bars). Both are plotted as proportions so that pairs and participants share an axis. The dashed line is chance and the dotted line the per-participant threshold.
Figure 4: Within-subject accuracy of each participant against the mean accuracy of that participant’s decoder on every other participant. Each point is one participant; the dashed lines mark chance, and ρ is Spearman’s rank correlation.
Arm
Rest window
Imagery window
Gap
Accuracy
n≥
Change ( q )
Separated
− 5.0 to − 3.0 s
+ 2.0 to + 4.0 s
5.0 s
0.6475
12/14
reference
Adjacent
− 2.0 to 0.0 s
+ 2.0 to + 4.0 s
2.0 s
0.6099
11/14
− 0.0377 (0.091)
Late
− 2.0 to 0.0 s
+ 5.0 to + 7.0 s
5.0 s
0.5970
12/14
− 0.0505 (0.039)
Adjacent, first half to second
2.0 s
0.5776
5/14
− 0.0699 (0.033)
Adjacent, second half to first
2.0 s
0.6024
10/14
− 0.0452 (0.039)
Table 7: Imagery versus rest on KaraOne under elapsed-time controls (LOSO, re-referenced scalp channels). Windows are relative to stimulus onset. The last column compares each arm with the separated arm; q is the Benjamini–Hochberg adjusted p -value.
Contrast
Accuracy
Threshold
n≥
p [95% CI]
Rest vs imagery
0.6099
0.552
11/14
0.00006 [0.580, 0.641]
Rest vs pre-imagery
0.6646
0.553
12/14
0.00006 [0.623, 0.706]
Pre-imagery vs imagery
0.6122
0.553
13/14
0.00006 [0.585, 0.647]
Window
Labelled as imagery [95% CI]
Rest
0.394 [0.290, 0.552]
Pre-imagery
0.663 [0.545, 0.762]; above rest in 14/14, p = 0.00006
Table 8: Rest, pre-imagery and imagery windows on KaraOne (LOSO, band power, re-referenced scalp channels). The pre-imagery interval lies between rest and imagery and contains perception of the prompt and preparation to articulate it. Above: each pair of windows decoded directly; threshold is the mean of the per-participant thresholds, and each participant is counted in n≥ against their own. Below: fraction of each window type that the rest-versus-imagery decoder, trained on the other participants, labelled as imagery. Each p is a one-sided Wilcoxon test across participants; the shuffle-label controls for the upper rows are in table 2 .
Figure 5: Time-resolved decoding with 500 ms windows in 50 ms steps. Each point is the mean accuracy over participants in one window, with its 95% confidence interval; filled points belong to a cluster that survives the cluster-based permutation test over time. The solid line is the accuracy of the full analysis window, the dashed line is chance and the dotted line the per-participant threshold.
Contrast
Prompts
Hold-outs
Accuracy
Threshold
n≥
p ( q )
Nasal
all
28
0.4880
0.532
1/14
0.861 (0.956)
phonemes
10
0.4980
0.556
0/14
0.725 (0.937)
Bilabial
all
28
0.4984
0.532
2/14
0.749 (0.937)
phonemes
10
0.5082
0.556
1/14
0.155 (0.311)
/iy/
all
28
0.5883
0.532
12/14
0.0006 (0.0061)
phonemes
12
0.5117
0.550
4/14
0.377 (0.628)
Table 9: Phonological contrasts on KaraOne with the test prompts held out of training (112 valid hold-out combinations in total). “All” uses all 11 prompts; “phonemes” uses the seven phonemes only. q is corrected across the family.
Feature family
Validated
Cells
FDR
Largest gain
Accuracy
p ( q )
Connectivity (signed wPLI)
yes
18
0
+ 0.0165
0.2165
0.0345 (0.8824)
Theta–beta coupling
yes
18
0
+ 0.0166
0.2666
0.0176 (0.8824)
Phase at a fixed latency
no
18
0
+ 0.0175
0.1603
0.1446 (0.9761)
Table 10: Content decoding from phase, connectivity and coupling features across three corpora, two region sets and both protocols. Benjamini–Hochberg correction is across all 54 cells.
Table S1a: Run identifiers for the content cells of table 3 of the main text. Accuracy is repeated so that rows can be matched.
Corpus
Alignment
Accuracy
Run identifier
Competition
none
0.2080
20260820_161905_bandpower_lr_bcic2020_LOSO
Competition
Euclidean, inductive 10
0.2063
20260820_162013_bandpower_lr_bcic2020_LOSO
Competition
Euclidean, inductive 20
0.2122
20260820_162038_bandpower_lr_bcic2020_LOSO
Competition
Euclidean, inductive 40
0.2055
20260820_162103_bandpower_lr_bcic2020_LOSO
Competition
Euclidean, transductive
0.2013
20260820_161933_bandpower_lr_bcic2020_LOSO
Competition
Riemannian
0.2052
20260820_162202_bandpower_lr_bcic2020_LOSO
Table S1b: Run identifiers for the alignment cells of table 5 of the main text.
Training set
Rows per fold
Multiplier
Accuracy
Change
n≥
q
inner only
149
1.00
0.2788
reference
2/10
n/a
+ pronounced
224
1.50
0.2765
− 0.0023
2/10
1.000
+ visualized
301
2.02
0.2672
− 0.0116
1/10
0.463
+ both
376
2.52
0.2705
− 0.0083
0/10
0.648
Table S2: Inner-speech accuracy on ds003626 (held-out session) when pronounced and visualized trials of the same words are added to training. q is from a paired per-participant test with Benjamini–Hochberg correction.
Contrast
Positive class
Negative class
Difference
/iy/
100%
42.9%
57.1
nasal
50.0%
71.4%
21.4
bilabial
50.0%
71.4%
21.4
/uw/
50.0%
66.7%
16.7
Table S3: Proportion of phoneme prompts (as opposed to word prompts) in each class of the KaraOne contrasts, and the difference in percentage points.
Task
Protocol
Decoder
Accuracy
Balanced
Macro-F1
Perm. p
Competition, 5 phrases
5-fold
band power
0.3273
0.3273
0.3270
0.0001
Competition, 5 phrases
held out
band power
0.3147
0.3147
0.3142
0.0001
Competition, 5 phrases
LOSO
band power
0.2063
0.2063
0.1796
0.2234
ds003626, 4 words, inner
5-fold
band power
0.2595
0.2595
0.2595
0.2439
ds003626, 4 words, inner
held out
band power
0.2786
0.2788
0.2729
0.0127
ds003626, 4 words, inner
LOSO
band power
0.2590
0.2590
0.2116
0.0898
Table S4: Content cells of table 3 of the main text under class-balanced metrics and an exact permutation test.
Corpus
Features
5-fold
Held out
Pooled minus held out
Competition
six-band bank
0.3273
0.2952
+ 0.0322
Competition
8–30 Hz
0.2980
0.2683
+ 0.0297
ds003626 inner
six-band bank
0.2595
0.2788
− 0.0193
ds003626 inner
8–30 Hz
0.2537
0.2513
+ 0.0024
KaraOne
six-band bank
0.2985
0.2583
+ 0.0402
KaraOne
8–30 Hz
0.2622
0.2500
+ 0.0122
Table S5: Within-subject accuracy with sessions pooled (5-fold) and with a session, run or block held out, for the two band-power feature sets.
Protocol
Band
Matched
Mismatched
Difference
p ( q )
Matched p
Matched 95% CI
within
8–13 Hz
0.5483
0.5634
+ 0.0151
0.019 (0.025)
0.0007
[0.527, 0.561]
within
8–30 Hz
0.5731
0.5932
+ 0.0201
0.008 (0.025)
0.0004
[0.550, 0.589]
within
62–100 Hz
0.6673
0.6827
+ 0.0154
0.084 (0.084)
0.0003
[0.648, 0.686]
within
8–30 + 62–100 Hz
0.6566
0.6785
+ 0.0220
0.013 (0.025)
< 0.0001
[0.636, 0.673]
LOSO
8–13 Hz
0.5051
0.5156
+ 0.0105
0.115
0.165
[0.494, 0.517]
LOSO
8–30 Hz
0.5063
0.5144
+ 0.0082
0.211
0.266
[0.494, 0.519]
Table S6: Pairwise separability on the competition corpus for phrase pairs matched and mismatched in syllable count. Chance is 0.500. “Within” is 5-fold cross-validation within subject. The last two columns test the matched pairs alone against chance.
Contrast
Accuracy
Run identifier
Rest vs imagery
0.6099
20260930_175026_bandpower_lr_karaone_LOSO
Rest vs pre-imagery
0.6646
20260930_182642_bandpower_lr_karaone_LOSO
Pre-imagery vs imagery
0.6122
20260930_190302_bandpower_lr_karaone_LOSO
Table S7: Run identifiers for the three contrasts of table 8 of the main text. Each run carries its own shuffle-label control of 200 draws. The transfer rates in the lower half of that table were computed on the same participant folds as the rest-versus-imagery run.
Imagined speech decoding from electroencephalography (EEG) has gained increasing attention as a potential communication pathway for individuals with severe motor impairments, yet reported performance often relies on evaluation protocols that do not clearly reflect cross-subject generalization. This study presents a transparent baseline investigation of a multi-class imagined speech EEG dataset under a strictly subject-independent evaluation framework. Two preprocessing and feature extraction pipelines were compared: a time-domain statistical feature approach and a frequency-domain spectral bandpower approach, evaluated using subject-wise cross-validation and trial-level majority voting with a random forest classifier. The spectral pipeline achieved a significantly higher mean trial-wise accuracy than the statistical pipeline (49.03 ± 4.18% vs. 37.97 ± 3.79%) for coarse-level classification across subjects. Forward feature selection further indicated that a limited subset of frequency bands captured most of the discriminative information. Overall, this work provides a strong basis for future brain-computer interface studies targeting improved cross-subject generalization in EEG-based imagined speech decoding.
Frederik Møllskov Trier, Xiaopeng Mao, Sadasivan Puthusserypady
Department of Health Technology Technical University of Denmark Ørsteds Plads, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
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.
Imagined speech decoding from EEG offers a promising route toward naturalistic brain-computer interfaces. Traditional closed-set classifiers treat semantic categories as independent labels and do not explicitly exploit relationships among linguistic intents, limiting output flexibility. We adapt a multimodal contrastive learning framework to imagined speech, aligning EEG trials with language representations in the embedding space of a frozen pretrained text encoder. An EEG encoder is trained with a composite objective combining semantically reweighted EEG-sentence alignment and text-prototype-based class discrimination, encouraging semantic structure while preserving separability among 39 intent categories. We evaluate the approach on the Chisco imagined speech dataset across five subjects, reporting Top-k accuracy, macro-F1, and balanced pairwise matching accuracy (2v2). We also investigate maximum EEG-text cosine similarity (MaxCosine) as an intrinsic indicator of decoding reliability and probe semantic structure beyond category labels using five evaluation-time semantic axes and a qualitative Semantic Gallery Probe (SGP) with previously unseen candidate sentences. The contrastive framework achieved decoding performance comparable to a task-optimized closed-set classifier while mapping EEG into a frozen language embedding space. MaxCosine identified subsets of held-out trials with higher Top-1 and Top-5 accuracy across subjects. Evaluation-time semantic axes showed mean agreement above the 50% chance reference across all five dimensions, and the SGP qualitatively illustrated direct comparison with unseen candidate sentences. Together, these findings suggest that EEG-language alignment can retain comparable fixed-intent decoding while supporting similarity-based retrieval, intrinsic reliability ranking, and evaluation of broader semantic structure.
Shahryar G. Namdari, Francesco Iacomi, Riccardo Barbieri +1
Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, 20133, Italy