Title: Plug-and-Play Stability for Intracortical Brain-Computer Interfaces: A One-Year Demonstration of Seamless Brain-to-Text Communication
Venue: NeurIPS 2023
Accepted: yes
Keywords: brain-computer interface

self-training

continual online learning
Abstract: Intracortical brain-computer interfaces (iBCIs) have shown promise for restoring rapid communication to people with neurological disorders such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 
However, to maintain high performance over time, iBCIs typically need frequent recalibration to combat changes in the neural recordings that accrue over days. 
This requires iBCI users to stop using the iBCI and engage in supervised data collection, making the iBCI system hard to use. 
In this paper, we propose a method that enables self-recalibration of communication iBCIs without interrupting the user. 
Our method leverages large language models (LMs) to automatically correct errors in iBCI outputs. 
The self-recalibration process uses these corrected outputs ("pseudo-labels") to continually update the iBCI decoder online. 
Over a period of more than one year (403 days), we evaluated our Continual Online Recalibration with Pseudo-labels (CORP) framework with one clinical trial participant. 
CORP achieved  a stable decoding accuracy of 93.84% in an online handwriting iBCI task, significantly outperforming other baseline methods. 
Notably, this is the longest-running iBCI stability demonstration involving a human participant. 
Our results provide the first  evidence for long-term stabilization of a plug-and-play, high-performance communication iBCI, addressing a major barrier for the clinical translation of iBCIs.

Plug-and-Play Stability for Intracortical Brain-Computer Interfaces: A One-Year Demonstration of Seamless Brain-to-Text Communication

Abstract

Intracortical brain-computer interfaces (iBCIs) have shown promise for restoring rapid communication to people with neurological disorders such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). However, to maintain high performance over time, iBCIs typically need frequent recalibration to combat changes in the neural recordings that accrue over days. This requires iBCI users to stop using the iBCI and engage in supervised data collection, making the iBCI system hard to use. In this paper, we propose a method that enables self-recalibration of communication iBCIs without interrupting the user. Our method leverages large language models (LMs) to automatically correct errors in iBCI outputs. The self-recalibration process uses these corrected outputs ("pseudo-labels") to continually update the iBCI decoder online. Over a period of more than one year (403 days), we evaluated our Continual Online Recalibration with Pseudo-labels (CORP) framework with one clinical trial participant. CORP achieved a stable decoding accuracy of 93 . 84% in an online handwriting iBCI task, significantly outperforming other baseline methods. Notably, this is the longest-running iBCI stability demonstration involving a human participant. Our results provide the first evidence for long-term stabilization of a plug-and-play, high-performance communication iBCI, addressing a major barrier for the clinical translation of iBCIs.

1 Introduction

The ability to communicate with others is a ubiquitous, everyday function. Neurological disorders such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) can often lead to loss of speech. Restoring lost communication can "improve relationships, increase participation in family and community life, offer a greater sense of independence and help a patient make important medical decisions" [4]. Noninvasive assistive technologies such as eye-tracking and electroencephalography (EEG) have helped reestablish communication channels with patients but suffer from low information transfer rates [29]. More recently, progress in intracortical brain-computer interfaces (iBCIs) that record neural activity at single-neuron resolution offers a promising path to restore rapid communication [30, 47]. For example, [47] demonstrated a high-performance iBCI that can accurately decode attempted handwriting movements into text from neural activity recorded with microelectrode arrays placed in the motor cortex.

Despite these advances, numerous challenges must be addressed before iBCIs can be effectively utilized by those who require them. One key challenge is to maintain accuracy in the face of nonstationary neural recordings. iBCIs often require daily recalibration to maintain accuracy. During the recalibration process, users must cease using the iBCIs for some length of time, diminishing the advantages of high-performance iBCIs. Nonstationarities are caused by various factors, including microelectrode array movement [40], device degradation [50], single neuron physiological changes [33, 9, 3], and variability at the behavioral level [7, 46]. These changes occur across different timescales, with single and multi-unit baseline firing rates changing within minutes [22, 33] and response selectivity often varying over days [7]. As these changes accumulate, an iBCI decoder fit to a specific time period gradually becomes outdated, resulting in a need for frequent recalibration. While recent attempts to create inherently robust decoders [20, 44] have demonstrated potential in mitigating this issue, they only postpone the inevitable need for recalibration.

In this work, we present an alternative approach called CORP : C ontinual O nline R ecalibration with P seudo-labels. CORP leverages the structure in language to enable self-recalibration of communication iBCIs without interrupting the user (i.e., plug-and-play). Specifically, CORP uses language models (LMs) to automatically correct communication iBCI text outputs, and continually retrains the decoder using these corrected outputs ("pseudo-labels"). LMs calculate probabilities for word sequences based on their likelihood of occurrence in the language, placing a strong prior on what the decoded text should look like that can help correct errors that would otherwise result in improbable sentences. Using an LM thus results in decoder outputs that contain fewer errors than the raw iBCI decoder outputs alone. CORP uses online stochastic gradient descent (SGD) to retrain the iBCI decoder to produce the pseudo-labels using the Connectionist Temporal Classification (CTC) [16] loss. We use various techniques such as a replay buffer and data augmentation to overcome the challenge of online SGD with very limited data. Note that CORP is agnostic to the communication task and can recalibrate any iBCI decoder that maps input neural signals to text outputs. CORP is particularly beneficial in scenarios where users rely on the iBCI system for continuous communication, and supervised data collection is either impractical or disruptive.

We built a prototype self-recalibrating handwriting iBCI system and assessed its long-term performance with one participant in a pilot clinical trial. Over a period of more than one year (403 days), our participant used the iBCI system monthly and wrote on average 58 . 3 sentences per usage session. With CORP, the average accuracy was stable at 93 . 84% ± 2 . 28 (mean ± standard deviation), significantly outperforming other recalibration methods. To our knowledge, our assessment represents the longest-running iBCI recalibration study to date, lasting 9 months longer than previous work [20]. CORP has the potential to remove a significant barrier to plug-and-play communication iBCIs. This study represents an initial step in applying machine learning (ML) methods that address nonstationary data distributions to neural network-based iBCI decoders. We believe that collaboration between the ML and iBCI community can lead to improved methods that specifically target the type of data distribution shifts seen for iBCIs. To that end, we released the data and code here 1 for future iBCI stability research.

RNN

Language

Model

TX Features

the>paper

data:

label:

Current session's data

the>one

data:

label:

Previous sessions' data

Combine and augment

The user attempts to write a sentence. Output from the

language model plus TX features are sent to the recalibrator.

Handwriting iBCI Decoder

Online Recalibrator

After the user finishes, recalibration runs in the background. The

user will start with a recalibrated model on the next trial.

Update RNN with SGD

Send data

2 Related work

Many unsupervised recalibration algorithms have been developed for iBCI decoders that attempt to transform neural data from new days to look like neural data collected on earlier days by aligning their distributions [10, 11, 27, 24]. These algorithms rely on the assumption that the neural signals can be mapped to a stable low-dimensional subspace which encodes a majority of task-related modulation [10, 3, 14, 45]. Unsupervised recalibration algorithms have achieved some success in cursor iBCIs, where a user controls a cursor on a computer screen via iBCI, but have not yet been demonstrated for iBCIs that decode more complex behaviors like handwriting or speech. Attempted handwriting or speech may require a larger number of neural dimensions to decode successfully compared to cursor iBCIs, and hence may be more difficult to align. We found that the Factor Analysis Stabilizer [10], a recently-proposed distribution-alignment method, did not appear to provide a benefit on our handwriting iBCI task. Further comparisons between CORP and these unsupervised distributionalignment methods should be done in the future. Additionally, it is worth noting that CORP has the potential to be integrated with these distribution-alignment approaches, whereby the neural data is initially de-noised using the distribution-alignment strategies. This combination could potentially harness the strengths of both methods.

Self-training is a technique that involves using a pre-existing classifier to generate predictions ("pseudo-labels") on a large unlabeled dataset, followed by training a new model using these pseudolabels. This approach has been widely employed in various machine learning applications [51, 18, 23]. Self-training as a means to recalibrate iBCIs has been investigated for cursor tasks [22, 49, 26]. Our work extends iBCI self-training to handwriting decoding, a richer task setting with higher dimensional outputs. We also leveraged LMs to provide robust priors, resulting in stable performance over a more extended time period. Self-training in speech recognition also utilizes LMs [23]; however, our approach is distinct due to its unique ability to handle continually shifting data distributions, while also operating in the data-limited regime of online iBCI control. LM-guided recalibration has also been explored for non-invasive BCI [6]. However, the inputs and decoding methods of non-invasive BCI differ significantly from those of iBCI.

Continual learning is an approach that enables models to learn from a large number of tasks sequentially, without forgetting knowledge obtained from the preceding tasks [17, 31]. This is particularly important in the context of our work, where the iBCI decoder must continually adapt to changes in the neural signals over time. To address the issue of catastrophic forgetting in continual learning, a variety of techniques have been developed [13, 36, 37]. In this work, we employ the replay buffer technique [37]. In future research, we plan to investigate additional approaches to further enhance the performance of our iBCI recalibration method.

3 Methods

In this section, we give an overview of the handwriting iBCI system and the Continual Online Recalibration with Pseudo-labels (CORP) framework (Figure 1).

3.1 Handwriting iBCI

Our handwriting iBCI system was developed based on the framework outlined in [47]. To train and evaluate the system, the user was instructed to copy sentences displayed on a computer screen by attempting to handwrite them letter by letter. Neural activity was recorded with two 96-channel silicon microelectrode arrays (Blackrock Neurotech). These microelectrodes were placed in the "hand knob" region of the dorsal motor cortex of our clinical trial participant (full details in Section 4).

Binned threshold-crossing counts were used as features for neural decoding, and were computed by counting the number of times the voltage time series on a given electrode crossed an amplitude threshold set at -4 . 5 times the standard deviation of the voltage signal. The iBCI decoder comprises a shared Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) RNN [8] backbone and day-specific affine transform layers for each recording session. The neural features first undergo an affine transformation via the day-specific layer before being processed by the shared GRU backbone. Given the small amount of collected data, we used a 2-layer GRU with 512 hidden units to decode the neural features into a sequence of character probabilities, comprising 26 English letters and 5 punctuation marks (periods, commas, apostrophes, question marks and spaces).

A 3-gram language model (LM), along with a beam search algorithm [34], processed the RNN character probability output and translated it into words in real-time, which were displayed on the screen. The 3-gram LM was trained on the OpenWebText2 [15] corpus using Kaldi [34]. It uses a 130,000 word vocabulary taken from the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary [1]. After the user finished writing each sentence, we employed the large language model (LLM) GPT2-XL [35] to rescore the 3-gram LM's n-best outputs, and the top-scored result was displayed on the screen as the final decoded sentence.

The iBCI decoder was trained using a combination of data from the same participant in [47] and newly collected data. The training was done with an NVIDIA A100 GPU and took about 2 hours. We used the Connectionist Temporal Classification (CTC) loss [16] as opposed to the cross-entropy (CE) loss when training the GRU. The advantage of using the CTC loss is that it eliminates the need for labeling the exact timing of each character while maintaining performance on par with a CE-trained model.

3.2 Continual online recalibration with pseudo-labels

Formally, the iBCI recalibration problem can be defined as follows. Let f : x ↦→ y be an iBCI decoder that maps neural activity x into text outputs y . x ∈ R T × C , where T is the number of time bins and C is the number of features. Suppose we are given a pretrained iBCI decoder f θ 0 with model parameters θ 0 . f θ 0 has been trained on a dataset D = ( x i,t , y i,t | t < k ) . x i,t denotes the neural activity for trial i on day t and y i,t denotes the corresponding ground-truth text label. D is collected before day k . On a new day k , we want to decode a new neural signal x j,k into text. Due to nonstationarity, x j,k does not come from the same distribution as x i,t | t < k , and therefore decoder f θ 0 's parameters require updating:

L is a distance function that measures the difference between decoded text ˆ y j,k and ground-truth text y j,k . We use Levenshtein distance for L .

There are two major challenges to solve the above problem. The first arises from the fact that we do not know y j,k , as we want the user to continuously use the iBCI system without stopping for supervised data collection. The second challenge is that at the beginning of day k , we only have a very small sample of x j,k (e.g. from a few seconds to a minute). Fine-tuning neural network models on small datasets can lead to overfitting and catastrophic forgetting [31, 36]. In the following sections, we describe how we address these two challenges.

3.2.1 Pseudo-labels

Although we do not know the ground-truth label for x j,t , the decoded output ˆ y j,k is mostly accurate. In [47], the author reported a 1.5% character error rate when evaluating a pretrained decoder on a new day that is less than a week away. However, when evaluating on a new day that was more than two weeks away, the accuracy dropped significantly. This observation suggests that using

LM-corrected outputs as pseudo-labels for continual recalibration could potentially maintain the decoder's accuracy over time, as long as recalibration is performed frequently enough. Formally, we replace the ground-truth label y j,k with the pseudo-label ˆ y j,k in Eq. 1.

3.2.2 Continual online recalibration

On each new day k , the recalibration process is initiated immediately after the user completes writing the first sentence. This process runs continuously in the background, updating the decoder after every sentence. Such a continual online recalibration poses an optimization challenge, distinct from traditional deep neural network optimization, which typically assumes access to large, correctly labeled datasets. In our case, we only have a limited amount of data with pseudo-labels, and due to within-day nonstationarity, the distribution of x j,k may be also subject to change. We surveyed the literature on continual learning to identify methods that would enable us to optimize our GRU decoder using small amounts of pseudo-labeled data.

Replay buffer A replay buffer in continual learning is a fixed-size buffer, typically denoted by M , which stores data pairs ( x i,t , y i,t ) [37]. Its purpose is to balance the learning process by combining new data with previously collected data, mitigating issues such as data sparsity, overfitting, and catastrophic forgetting. We use a replay buffer to combine data collected prior to day k and data from day k . p percent of the replay buffer is reserved for day k 's data and the remaining space is allocated for data from previous days. The incorporation of new data alongside existing data addresses the data sparsity issue, preventing the model from overfitting to a limited new dataset. Furthermore, this approach safeguards the model against forgetting previously learned information.

Data augmentation Data augmentation is a technique commonly employed in machine learning to artificially expand the training dataset by generating new samples through the application of various transformations. This approach enhances the model's ability to generalize by exposing it to a wider range of data variations, leading to improved performance and robustness. To enrich the recalibration data, we also employ data augmentation techniques. Following [47], we introduce two types of artificial noise to the neural features. Firstly, we add white noise directly to the input feature vectors at each time step, providing the model with a more diverse set of inputs. Subsequently, we introduce artificial random offsets to the means of the neural features, to make the decoder model more robust to baseline firing rates drift [22, 43, 10]. This combination of augmentation techniques serves to enhance the model's overall performance and stability.

Stopping criteria Online recalibration requires balancing time, accuracy, and nonstationarity. The recalibration process should be swift, enabling users to access the updated model promptly, while accounting for the time needed for neural network training to improve model accuracy. To strike a balance, we need to determine an optimal point for stopping the recalibration process in order to minimize waiting time and maximize accuracy. Note that unlike typical machine learning settings with fixed validation sets, we lack a validation set for two reasons: the first is that we have a very limited amount of data; the second is that due to nonstationarity, performing well on data collected in the past does not guarantee good performance in future.

Our approach involves setting a loss threshold during recalibration and selecting an appropriate learning rate. During recalibration, a training loss is computed for every gradient update step taken on the training data. Since lower training loss values correlate with higher accuracy (assuming no substantial overfitting has occurred), we stop the recalibration once the loss falls below a certain threshold. However, loss thresholds that are too low may prolong recalibration and risk overfitting to imperfect pseudo-labels. Thus, we must find an optimal loss threshold considering time constraints and pseudo-label quality. In addition to the loss threshold, the learning rate also affects the recalibration accuracy and time. A trade-off exists between small and large learning rates, with large rates requiring fewer gradient update steps but potentially causing instability, and smaller rates offering stability at the cost of increased time. The optimal learning rates and loss thresholds depend on the problem. In the next section, we conduct an offline sweep to analyze the trade-offs. We find a loss threshold and learning rate combination that effectively balances time, accuracy, and nonstationarity.

4 Results

We assessed the effectiveness of CORP with our clinical trial participant (referred to as 'T5'), who is part of the BrainGate2 pilot clinical trial. T5 is a right-handed man who was 69 years old at the time

b

a

of the study. He was diagnosed with C4 AIS-C spinal cord injury eleven years prior to this study. This study was conducted under an FDA investigational device exemption, with institutional review board approval (see details in Supplement).

Over a 403-day time period, T5 used our handwriting iBCI system in real-time each month to copy sentences displayed on the screen (15 evaluation sessions in total). Each evaluation session consisted of a side-by-side comparison of online handwriting performance with and without CORP recalibration. Every session was divided into four "blocks", with each block containing 10-20 sentences. T5 was instructed to read sentences displayed on a computer screen and attempt to write them. After finishing a sentence, T5 would verbally report this, and we would manually stop the decoder and start recalibration. T5's writing speed was 73 . 2 ± 11 . 0 characters per minute on average. All sentences were randomly sampled from the Brown corpus with no repetition [12].

The first block served as a warm-up for T5 to get reacquainted with the handwriting task after a hiatus. A fixed set of 10 sentences was used for the warm-up block. The second block employed a frozen seed model, trained on a combination of data from [47] and data collected prior to this evaluation (21 sessions in total). The third and fourth block featured recalibration using the same seed model but unfrozen, which was continually recalibrated using CORP. In a few sessions (details in the Supplement), the third and fourth block were run before the second block to mitigate the order effect.

Plug-and-play long-term stability CORP successfully maintained the seed model's high accuracy over a 403-day evaluation period without requiring any supervised data collection.

Figure 2a compares the character error rate (CER) of the RNN-decoded outputs (without an LM) between the no-recalibration blocks (original seed model) and the recalibration blocks (CORPrecalibrated model) for each evaluation day. On day-0, a seed model was trained and its CER was 3 . 22% , similar to what was reported in [47]. Starting on day-28, in the no-recalibration blocks the CER gradually increased and then fluctuated due to nonstationarity in the neural data. In contrast, the CORP recalibration blocks exhibited stable and low average CER of 6 . 35% ± 1 . 75 . During each evaluation day, the recalibration block's CER started higher than the day before but progressively decreased over the course of the day, demonstrating successful continual recalibration as the participant wrote more sentences. In some recalibration blocks (e.g. day-61), the CER initially decreased, increased, and then decreased again, revealing that nonstationarity can occur within a single day, and CORP can effectively address it. Notably, there were extended breaks between some sessions (e.g. day-105 and day-180) and CORP was still able to successfully recalibrate the decoder, showcasing its resilience and adaptability even in the face of long gaps in usage. Remarkably, the recalibration accuracy remains high and stable even after 405 days (6.18% CER). Figure 2b shows a similar comparison for the LM-decoded outputs, with performance measured in word error rate (WER) after the LM is applied. T5 could clearly perceive the performance difference between the no-recalibration blocks and the recalibration blocks, and expressed a preference for the system recalibrated with CORP.

a

b

CORP can achieve reasonable recalibration accuracy with minimal data. Figure 3a shows the recalibration WER as a function of the number of sentences used for recalibration (results were obtained from re-analyzing the data offline while using different amounts of training data). After approximately 10 sentences, CORP recovers most of the lost accuracy. Increasing the number of sentences can further improve recalibration accuracy (albeit at a reduced rate).

A high-quality seed model is important for maintaining consistent recalibration accuracy. Training a seed model on an extensive dataset allows the model to capture a wide range of variations in the underlying patterns, which in turn enhances its generalization capabilities. Figure 3b demonstrates the benefits of using more data for training. However, it also reveals a diminishing return after about 10 days' worth of data. This plateau likely occurs because the model has already learned a substantial amount from the available patterns and information within those 10 days, resulting in diminishing improvements as more data is added.

Comparison of recalibration methods Table 1 compares the performance of CORP to other recalibration methods in online and offline settings. In the online setting, the average WER is measured using the recorded decoder outputs from all the online evaluation sessions. In the offline setting, we used the recorded neural activity from recalibration blocks from day-28 to day-228 to compare different recalibration methods. Offline recalibration was run with 10 random seeds to compute the confidence interval using bootstrapping.

Offline analysis allowed us to compare CORP to an alternative approach: unsupervised stabilization of the distribution of neural data. We compared CORP to the Factor Analysis (FA) Stabilizer, an unsupervised recalibration method originally developed for cursor iBCI tasks. The FA Stabilizer requires a reference day to estimate the FA subspace, and aligns all other days' data to that reference day. We used day-0 as the reference day and aligned all other days' data to day-0. An FA seed

model was trained on the aligned training data, frozen, and then evaluated on the aligned evaluation data. We used 96 latent dimensions for FA seed model training and recalibration as this was the best performing configuration. More details on the hyperparameters for the FA Stabilizer can be found in the Supplement. The results show that the FA Stabilizer was unsuccessful in the handwriting recalibration task, which stands in contrast to previous studies where it demonstrated success in a cursor iBCI task. This could potentially be because the FA Stabilizer assumes that a low dimensional latent structure is preserved across days and can be realigned using Procrustes alignment. Handwriting, however, has a higher intrinsic dimensionality than iBCI cursor control (see Supplement) and thus may be more challenging to realign. Nevertheless, many other promising distribution-alignment methods have been proposed [11, 27, 24], and future work should assess these methods and further probe their potential mechanisms of failure and improvement. In theory, distribution-alignment methods should be able to be combined with CORP for enhanced performance.

Note that the "No Recalibration WER" is different between the online and offline settings because, in the online setting, the no-recalibration blocks used different sentences from the recalibration blocks. When evaluating offline, we tested both methods on the same set of sentences. Additionally, the offline CORP has lower WER because we further optimized its hyper-parameters offline. We also compared CORP to continuous recalibration using the actual ground truth-labels, which sets a lower bound on the WER. With ground truth labels, we achieved a word error rate of 2%, showing that CORP is close to the lowest achievable error rate (1.6% difference), but with some room for improvement.

Balancing recalibration accuracy and time CORP recalibration introduces minimal latency to the end-user's interaction with the system. On average, the recalibration procedure took approximately 9 seconds to complete (compared to an average of 36 seconds to write each sentence). During evaluation, the participant was requested to pause before writing the subsequent sentence until the recalibration was finished. However, in a real-world application, this recalibration could operate seamlessly in the background, unbeknownst to the user. The short run-time of CORP ensures that the recalibrated model is promptly available for use.

To achieve a balance between recalibration accuracy and time, we explored a range of loss thresholds and learning rates. Both loss threshold and learning rate together determine the recalibration time and accuracy, as shown in Figure 4. For any fixed learning rate, initially, as the loss threshold is reduced, the recalibration CER also decreases, but then increases as the model begins overfitting to imperfect pseudo-labels. Very small learning rates (e.g., learning rate = 0.001) not only take more time to recalibrate but also lead to sub-optimal recalibration CER. Conversely, large learning rates might achieve the optimum faster, but can cause instability when the loss threshold is small (e.g., the

train steps and CER increase dramatically for learning rate = 0.01 when the loss threshold is less than 1). Overall, CORP can work well with a wide range of learning rates and loss thresholds. This is advantageous for its practical use, as it eliminates the need for extensive hyperparameter tuning for each new user.

Ablation on CORP Table 2 presents the effects of various ablations on the accuracy of CORP's recalibration, highlighting the importance of certain key components.

The Language model (LM) makes the most significant contribution to recalibration accuracy. When the LM is not incorporated, as shown in the "No Language Model" ablation, the CER increases significantly when relying solely on RNN-decoded outputs as pseudo-labels. This underscores the LM's proficiency in correcting decoding errors induced by nonstationarities, and emphasizes its significance in the CORP framework.

The next ablation, "No GRU Backbone Training", freezes the shared GRU backbone of our decoder while only training the day-specific affine input layer. Since CER only increases by 2% if the backbone is frozen, this ablation results suggest that nonstationarities largely cause the neural representation to gradually rotate from the original space into a new one, aligning with previous findings [47]. Nonetheless, recalibrating both the backbone GRU and the day-specific layers yields improved recalibration accuracy, indicating that factors beyond mere rotation of the neural representation are in play.

Lastly, the ablations "No Replay Buffer" and "No Data Augmentation", which remove the use of the replay buffer and noise augmentation respectively, both result in a CER increase. Despite the increase being modest, these components may still be important during the initial stages of recalibration when data availability is limited.

Limitations One limitation of CORP lies in its dependence on the accuracy of the pseudo-labels. In Figure 5, we examine the impact of pseudo-label accuracy on recalibration accuracy. To simulate a varying pseudo-label accuracy, we randomly altered a specific percentage of letters in the ground truth sentences (replacing letters, inserting new letters, and deleting letters). As the CER of the pseudo-labels increased, the recalibrated RNN's CER also increased, following an almost linear relationship. The sublinear relationship can likely be attributed to the redundancy of letters in sentences. Interestingly, after auto-correction by an LM, the recalibration CER increased much more slowly than the pseudo-label CER. This again shows the importance of leveraging an LM for pseudo-label-based recalibration.

Considering these findings, we do not anticipate pseudolabel quality to be a major concern in practice. This is because future clinically viable iBCIs are expected to have a high decoding accuracy (which should be achievable with higher channel count devices, e.g. [28, 39, 32]). Users are

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pseudo-label Character Error Rate (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Character Error Rate (%)

RNN-Decoded

LM-Decoded

also likely to utilize the iBCI frequently, resulting in small nonstationarities most of the time. Under

these conditions, we believe that the pseudo-labels will have high accuracy, allowing CORP to sustain the iBCI's accuracy indefinitely.

5 Discussion

iBCIs offer the potential to restore communication abilities lost due to neurological disease or injury. In this study, we presented CORP, a continual online recalibration method to address a nonstationarity of neural signals, which is a key challenge in iBCIs. CORP leverages language models to perform self-recalibration of any communication iBCI that maps neural activity to text. Through an extensive evaluation of a handwriting iBCI system, we demonstrated the efficacy of CORP in maintaining high decoding accuracy over an extended period of more than one year (403 days), achieving plug-and-play stability. This is the longest-running iBCI stability demonstration involving human participants. Our findings have important implications for the clinical translation of iBCIs. By maintaining decoding accuracy in the presence of nonstationarity, CORP can help to ensure reliable and stable iBCI performance, which is crucial for user acceptance and practical utility. Additionally, the reasonable time and computational resources associated with CORP facilitates the implementation of iBCIs in various clinical and home settings.

However, there are some limitations to the current study. The reliance on pseudo-label accuracy in CORP may pose challenges in cases where the iBCI system exhibits substantial nonstationarity or low decoding accuracy. Nonetheless, we expect that future iBCIs will continue to improve in performance as recording devices improve (e.g., [28, 39, 32]), mitigating this concern. Furthermore, the present study focused on a handwriting iBCI system with one participant, and the generalizability of our findings to other iBCI tasks and more participants remains to be established.

In future work, several avenues could be explored to further enhance the recalibration process. For instance, combining distribution-alignment approaches [10, 11, 24, 27] with CORP might harness the strengths of both methods. Various methods developed for addressing distribution shift in machine learning could also be investigated [41, 2, 5, 19, 25, 21, 38, 42]. It is also important to examine the performance of CORP in other iBCI applications, such as speech decoding[48], to gain valuable insights into its broader applicability and potential for further advancements in the iBCI field.

In conclusion, CORP represents a promising approach to address the challenges of nonstationarity in iBCI systems. By enabling effective online recalibration without the need for additional supervised data collection, CORP has the potential to tackle one of the remaining technical roadblocks for clinically translating high-performance communication iBCIs.

References

The CMU pronouncing dictionary. http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/cmudict . Accessed: 2023-05-16.

Martin Arjovsky, Léon Bottou, Ishaan Gulrajani, and David Lopez-Paz. Invariant risk minimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02893 , 2019.

Vivek R Athalye, Karunesh Ganguly, Rui M Costa, and Jose M Carmena. Emergence of coordinated neural dynamics underlies neuroprosthetic learning and skillful control. Neuron , 93(4):955-970, 2017.

Alisa Brownlee and Merisa Palovcak. The role of augmentative communication devices in the medical management of als. NeuroRehabilitation , 22(6):445-450, 2007.

Fabio M Carlucci, Antonio D'Innocente, Silvia Bucci, Barbara Caputo, and Tatiana Tommasi. Domain generalization by solving jigsaw puzzles. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2229-2238, 2019.

Xinlin J Chen, Leslie M Collins, and Boyla O Mainsah. Language model-guided classifier adaptation for brain-computer interfaces for communication. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) , pages 1642-1647. IEEE, 2022.

Cynthia A Chestek, Aaron P Batista, Gopal Santhanam, M Yu Byron, Afsheen Afshar, John P Cunningham, Vikash Gilja, Stephen I Ryu, Mark M Churchland, and Krishna V Shenoy. Single-neuron stability during repeated reaching in macaque premotor cortex. Journal of Neuroscience , 27(40):10742-10750, 2007.

Kyunghyun Cho, Bart Van Merriënboer, Caglar Gulcehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.1078 , 2014.

Mark M Churchland and Krishna V Shenoy. Temporal complexity and heterogeneity of single-neuron activity in premotor and motor cortex. Journal of neurophysiology , 97(6):4235-4257, 2007.

Alan D Degenhart, William E Bishop, Emily R Oby, Elizabeth C Tyler-Kabara, Steven M Chase, Aaron P Batista, and Byron M Yu. Stabilization of a brain-computer interface via the alignment of low-dimensional spaces of neural activity. Nature biomedical engineering , 4(7):672-685, 2020.

Ali Farshchian, Juan A Gallego, Joseph P Cohen, Yoshua Bengio, Lee E Miller, and Sara A Solla. Adversarial domain adaptation for stable brain-machine interfaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00045 , 2018.

WNelson Francis and Henry Kucera. Brown corpus manual.

Robert M French. Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks. Trends in cognitive sciences , 3(4):128-135, 1999.

Juan A Gallego, Matthew G Perich, Lee E Miller, and Sara A Solla. Neural manifolds for the control of movement. Neuron , 94(5):978-984, 2017.

Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, Shawn Presser, and Connor Leahy. The Pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027 , 2020.

Alex Graves, Santiago Fernández, Faustino Gomez, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Connectionist temporal classification: labelling unsegmented sequence data with recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning , pages 369-376, 2006.

Raia Hadsell, Dushyant Rao, Andrei A Rusu, and Razvan Pascanu. Embracing change: Continual learning in deep neural networks. Trends in cognitive sciences , 24(12):1028-1040, 2020.

Junxian He, Jiatao Gu, Jiajun Shen, and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato. Revisiting self-training for neural sequence generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.13788 , 2019.

Christina Heinze-Deml and Nicolai Meinshausen. Conditional variance penalties and domain shift robustness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.11469 , 2017.

Tommy Hosman, Tsam Kiu Pun, Kapitonava, John D Simeral, and Leigh R Hochberg. Months-long high-performance fixed LSTM decoder for cursor control in human intracortical brain-computer interfaces. In 2023 11th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER) . IEEE, 2023.

Weihua Hu, Gang Niu, Issei Sato, and Masashi Sugiyama. Does distributionally robust supervised learning give robust classifiers? In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 2029-2037. PMLR, 2018.

Beata Jarosiewicz, Anish A Sarma, Daniel Bacher, Nicolas Y Masse, John D Simeral, Brittany Sorice, Erin M Oakley, Christine Blabe, Chethan Pandarinath, Vikash Gilja, et al. Virtual typing by people with tetraplegia using a self-calibrating intracortical brain-computer interface. Science translational medicine , 7(313):313ra179-313ra179, 2015.

Jacob Kahn, Ann Lee, and Awni Hannun. Self-training for end-to-end speech recognition. In ICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pages 7084-7088. IEEE, 2020.

Brianna M Karpowicz, Yahia H Ali, Lahiru N Wimalasena, Andrew R Sedler, Mohammad Reza Keshtkaran, Kevin Bodkin, Xuan Ma, Lee E Miller, and Chethan Pandarinath. Stabilizing brain-computer interfaces through alignment of latent dynamics. bioRxiv , pages 2022-04, 2022.

Da Li, Yongxin Yang, Yi-Zhe Song, and Timothy Hospedales. Learning to generalize: Meta-learning for domain generalization. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 32, 2018.

Zheng Li, Joseph E O'Doherty, Mikhail A Lebedev, and Miguel AL Nicolelis. Adaptive decoding for brain-machine interfaces through bayesian parameter updates. Neural computation , 23(12):3162-3204, 2011.

Xuan Ma, Fabio Rizzoglio, Eric J Perreault, Lee E Miller, and Ann Kennedy. Using adversarial networks to extend brain computer interface decoding accuracy over time. bioRxiv , pages 2022-08, 2022.

Elon Musk et al. An integrated brain-machine interface platform with thousands of channels. Journal of medical Internet research , 21(10):e16194, 2019.

Chethan Pandarinath and Sliman J Bensmaia. The science and engineering behind sensitized braincontrolled bionic hands. Physiological Reviews , 102(2):551-604, 2022.

Chethan Pandarinath, Paul Nuyujukian, Christine H Blabe, Brittany L Sorice, Jad Saab, Francis R Willett, Leigh R Hochberg, Krishna V Shenoy, and Jaimie M Henderson. High performance communication by people with paralysis using an intracortical brain-computer interface. Elife , 6:e18554, 2017.

German I Parisi, Ronald Kemker, Jose L Part, Christopher Kanan, and Stefan Wermter. Continual lifelong learning with neural networks: A review. Neural networks , 113:54-71, 2019.

Angelique C Paulk, Yoav Kfir, Arjun R Khanna, Martina L Mustroph, Eric M Trautmann, Dan J Soper, Sergey D Stavisky, Marleen Welkenhuysen, Barundeb Dutta, Krishna V Shenoy, et al. Large-scale neural recordings with single neuron resolution using Neuropixels probes in human cortex. Nature Neuroscience , 25(2):252-263, 2022.

János A Perge, Mark L Homer, Wasim Q Malik, Sydney Cash, Emad Eskandar, Gerhard Friehs, John P Donoghue, and Leigh R Hochberg. Intra-day signal instabilities affect decoding performance in an intracortical neural interface system. Journal of neural engineering , 10(3):036004, 2013.

Daniel Povey, Arnab Ghoshal, Gilles Boulianne, Lukas Burget, Ondrej Glembek, Nagendra Goel, Mirko Hannemann, Petr Motlicek, Yanmin Qian, Petr Schwarz, et al. The Kaldi speech recognition toolkit. In IEEE 2011 workshop on automatic speech recognition and understanding , number CONF. IEEE Signal Processing Society, 2011.

Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog , 1(8):9, 2019.

Anthony Robins. Catastrophic forgetting, rehearsal and pseudorehearsal. Connection Science , 7(2):123146, 1995.

David Rolnick, Arun Ahuja, Jonathan Schwarz, Timothy Lillicrap, and Gregory Wayne. Experience replay for continual learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32, 2019.

Shiori Sagawa, Pang Wei Koh, Tatsunori B Hashimoto, and Percy Liang. Distributionally robust neural networks for group shifts: On the importance of regularization for worst-case generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.08731 , 2019.

Kunal Sahasrabuddhe, Aamir A Khan, Aditya P Singh, Tyler M Stern, Yeena Ng, Aleksandar Tadi´ c, Peter Orel, Chris LaReau, Daniel Pouzzner, Kurtis Nishimura, et al. The Argo: a high channel count recording system for neural recording in vivo. Journal of neural engineering , 18(1):015002, 2021.

Gopal Santhanam, Michael D Linderman, Vikash Gilja, Afsheen Afshar, Stephen I Ryu, Teresa H Meng, and Krishna V Shenoy. HermesB: a continuous neural recording system for freely behaving primates. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , 54(11):2037-2050, 2007.

Baochen Sun and Kate Saenko. Deep coral: Correlation alignment for deep domain adaptation. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2016 Workshops: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 8-10 and 15-16, 2016, Proceedings, Part III 14 , pages 443-450. Springer, 2016.

Yu Sun, Xiaolong Wang, Zhuang Liu, John Miller, Alexei Efros, and Moritz Hardt. Test-time training with self-supervision for generalization under distribution shifts. In International conference on machine learning , pages 9229-9248. PMLR, 2020.

David Sussillo, Paul Nuyujukian, Joline M Fan, Jonathan C Kao, Sergey D Stavisky, Stephen Ryu, and Krishna Shenoy. A recurrent neural network for closed-loop intracortical brain-machine interface decoders. Journal of neural engineering , 9(2):026027, 2012.

David Sussillo, Sergey D Stavisky, Jonathan C Kao, Stephen I Ryu, and Krishna V Shenoy. Making brain-machine interfaces robust to future neural variability. Nature communications , 7(1):13749, 2016.

Eric M Trautmann, Sergey D Stavisky, Subhaneil Lahiri, Katherine C Ames, Matthew T Kaufman, Daniel J O'Shea, Saurabh Vyas, Xulu Sun, Stephen I Ryu, Surya Ganguli, et al. Accurate estimation of neural population dynamics without spike sorting. Neuron , 103(2):292-308, 2019.

Wilson Truccolo, Gerhard M Friehs, John P Donoghue, and Leigh R Hochberg. Primary motor cortex tuning to intended movement kinematics in humans with tetraplegia. Journal of Neuroscience , 28(5):1163-1178, 2008.

Francis R Willett, Donald T Avansino, Leigh R Hochberg, Jaimie M Henderson, and Krishna V Shenoy. High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting. Nature , 593(7858):249-254, 2021.

Francis R Willett, Erin M Kunz, Chaofei Fan, Donald T Avansino, Guy H Wilson, Eun Young Choi, Foram Kamdar, Leigh R Hochberg, Shaul Druckmann, Krishna V Shenoy, et al. A high-performance speech neuroprosthesis. BioRxiv , pages 2023-01, 2023.

Guy H Wilson, Francis R Willett, Elias A Stein, Foram Kamdar, Donald T Avansino, Leigh R Hochberg, Krishna V Shenoy, Shaul Druckmann, and Jaimie M Henderson. Long-term unsupervised recalibration of cursor BCIs. bioRxiv , pages 2023-02, 2023.

Kevin Woeppel, Christopher Hughes, Angelica J Herrera, James R Eles, Elizabeth C Tyler-Kabara, Robert A Gaunt, Jennifer L Collinger, and Xinyan Tracy Cui. Explant analysis of utah electrode arrays implanted in human cortex for brain-computer-interfaces. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology , 9:1137, 2021.

Qizhe Xie, Minh-Thang Luong, Eduard Hovy, and Quoc V Le. Self-training with noisy student improves imagenet classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 10687-10698, 2020.

Peer reviews:
{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\nThis paper introduces a method called Continual Online Recalibration with Pseudo-labels (CORP) that allows for self-recalibration of intracortical brain-computer interfaces (iBCIs) without the need for user interruption. iBCIs are used to restore communication abilities in individuals with neurological disorders like ALS but require frequent recalibration due to changes in neural recordings over time. The proposed method utilizes large language models (LMs) to automatically correct errors in iBCI outputs and uses these corrected outputs as \"pseudo-labels\" to update the iBCI decoder in real time. The CORP framework was evaluated over an 8-month period with a single participant in a clinical trial. The results showed a stable decoding accuracy of 93.71% in an online handwriting task, outperforming other baseline methods. This study demonstrates the longest-running iBCI stability with a human participant and presents a plug-and-play, high-performance communication iBCI that addresses a significant challenge in the clinical application of iBCIs.\n\nSTRENGTHS:\n1. originality: This work presents an online recalibration method for iBCI which uses LLM to perform re-calibration for communication iBCI.\n2. quality and clarity: This paper provides detailed experimental validation of the effectiveness of the proposed method. The figures and text are clear, easy to understand, and flow smoothly, ensuring a clear expression of ideas.\n3. significance: The CORP method proposed in this paper achieves higher accuracy and stability in brain-to-text communication through intracortical brain-computer interfaces (iBCIs) than other recalibration methods. It has been validated on the longest-running iBCI involving human participants, proving its effectiveness and potential.\n\nWEAKNESSES:\n1. The method presented in this paper has only been validated on a single subject, which may raise concerns about the limited sample size and lack of generalizability.\n2. The stopping criteria mentioned in the article are based on whether the loss falls below a certain threshold to determine the termination of training. This criterion may not be sufficiently objective. It could be considered to explore alternative quantitative metrics for evaluating the training performance of the model.\n\nQUESTIONS:\nIf a participant does not use the iBCI for an extended period without recalibrating the RNN model, the initial Word Error Rate (WER) and Character Error Rate (CER) can be very high. In such cases, using pseudo-labels generated with the help of LLMs may potentially mislead the training of the RNN model. Has this scenario been tested or are there any alternative approaches?\n\nLIMITATIONS:\nAs mentioned by the authors in the paper, the main limitation of CORP lies in the pseudo-labels generated by the language model. If the error rate of the pseudo-labels is high, it directly affects the Character Error Rate (CER) of the recalibrated RNN model. Therefore, it is crucial to select more powerful language models to minimize errors in the pseudo-labels.", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 7, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 3, "SOUNDNESS_CORRECTNESS": 3, "DATE": "2023-07-06"}

{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\nThe paper proposes a self-recalibrating brain-computer interface system where inputs come from implanted electrodes in patient's motor cortex and the outputs characters that are patient images to hand-write. The output is then corrected by a language model to match to the most probable desired sentence.\n\nThe recalibration in needed because in the real biological system there are many factors that change over time and the input data distribution drifts because of that. While it is possible to recalibrate the system by running a dedicated session, this is not optimal is it requires downtime, participation of a technician and ~daily mental effort from the patient.\n\nThis work proposes a smart trick to used LLM-corrected word predictions as new labels for continuous retraining: the input signal distribution drift is gradual on the next day, while the drift has already occurred, the language model can still correctly recover what the intended word were. And these corrected words can be used as new labels to retrain the system a bit and this cancel the drift. If performed often the system will never drift too far and will always be able to self-correct.\n\nThe experimental results from one test subject with implanted microelectrode array confirm that the error rate of the system stays stable thanks to continuous recalibration and it is shows that it would degrade without the proposed mechanism.\n\nSTRENGTHS:\nThe paper is very clearly written and well-structured, to the extent that I find myself in trouble performing my role as a reviewer's and ask questions, because I had to delete most most of them as I progressed through the pages :)\n\nThe application is, of course, amazing and the fact that this work was tested on a human subject with implanted electrodes makes it a unique contribution to the field of ML applications to BCIs.\n\nWEAKNESSES:\nI could not come up with any. I think paper is a very clear account of what was done and presents sufficient support for the claims.\n\nPerhaps more test subjects would be beneficial, but even with one subject the results stand.\n\nQUESTIONS:\nFig 1: What does the arrow from \"Language model\" to \"Current session's data\" mean? Is it somehow part of LM's training to predict session data? Or does it provide labels and the data in \"Tx Fetures\" is the same as in \"Current session's data\"?\n\n126: How does the system know that the subject has finished thinking a sentence? Is there a special \"stop\"-though and if so - how reliably it can be detected?\n\nQ1: What was X's subjective feedback on the performance of the system after a few months? While the numbers clearly show that the system was more accurate, what it also noticeable from the user's perspective?\n\nQ2: How are spaces handles? I would image there is no clear motor imagery to think about to imagine making a space, how does the patient do that?\n\n361: Perhaps this should go to Limitations?\n\nLIMITATIONS:\nI would be curious to know about the natural limits of speed of writing with this approach. After all having a direct brain connection would seem like an opportunity to forgo \"clunky\" written language and make a more direct transmission possible. Just curious what are the authors' thought on feasibility of this and what could be the way to do it.", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 8, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 4, "SOUNDNESS_CORRECTNESS": 4, "DATE": "2023-07-07"}

{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\nThere is a vastly growing literature reconstructing continuous language from non-invasive brain recordings using popular deep-learning models. These papers typically use invasive recordings from surgically implanted electrodes, while decoders that use non-invasive recordings can only identify stimuli from among a small set of letters, words, or phrases. \n\nThis paper contributes to that literature by introducing a new approach, CORP, a continual online recalibration method for intracranial Brain-Computer Interface (iBCI) that maps neural activity to text. Specifically, the authors use a language model (RNN) to automatically correct errors in iBCI outputs by continually updating the iBCI decoder with an online learning method. The experimental results revealed that the proposed framework achieved a stable decoding accuracy of 93.71% in an online handwriting iBCI task, significantly outperforming other baseline methods.\n\nSTRENGTHS:\nThe paper contains the following key contributions:\n\n* The novelty of this work: Different from previous continuous language reconstruction methods from non-invasive brain recordings, the authors build a framework to leverage the structure in language to enable self-recalibration of communication iBCIs without interrupting the user.\n* The proposed framework is agnostic to the communication task and can recalibrate any iBCI decoder that maps input neural signals to text output.\n\nOriginality:\n\n* The prototype of a self-recalibrating handwriting iBCI system and assessed its performance over a period of time is interesting.\n\nWEAKNESSES:\nWeaknesses:\n\n* Although the paper's main idea is quite interesting, however, the experiment was conducted on one participant in a pilot clinical trial. Hence, the proposed method needs to be tested on more subjects.\n\n* Authors have not discussed recent brain decoding works:\n\n    [1] Semantic reconstruction of continuous language from non-invasive brain recordings, Jerry Tang, Amanda LeBel, Shailee Jain, Alexander G. Huth\n\n    [2] Decoding speech from non-invasive brain recordings, Alexandre DÃ©fossez, Charlotte Caucheteux, JÃ©rÃ©my Rapin, Ori Kabeli, and Jean-RÃ©mi King\n\n* In the above works, the authors reconstruct the continuous language from non-invasive brain recordings (fMRI and MEG) with better perplexity. \n\n* Did the authors compare their methods on any existing datasets?\n\n* Since the RNN language model is limited in handling long-term memory information and vanishing gradient problems, did the authors try with recent pretrained Transformer language models? We may expect better accuracy since the Transformer model was pretrained on larger corpora. Moreover, we may expect that a replay buffer is not required in the case of Transformer models.\n\nQuality: The paper supports its claims with few details. Specifically, the methodology and experimental details are limited.\n\nClarity: The paper needs a lot of improvement with clear methodology details and motivation behind using the RNN model. The information provided in the submission needs to be more comprehensive to reproduce the results.\n\nQUESTIONS:\n* Did the authors interpret the states of RNN in a continual online learning setup? Is there any trend across days? Which information is overwriting more in the language model?\n\nLIMITATIONS:\nThe authors have discussed several limitations and made future directions for the research community.", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 5, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 3, "SOUNDNESS_CORRECTNESS": 2, "DATE": "2023-07-07"}

{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\nThis work focuses on\n\nSTRENGTHS:\nOriginality: Related work in Chen et al., IEEE SMC 2022 uses a language model for pseudo label corrections during BCI self-recalibration, though the study is focused on simulations with EEG data from a longitudinal study with participants with ALS using the P300 speller. This work is a creative combination of existing ideas to develop a new method to recalibrate BCIs for communication by using language models to improve pseudolabel quality and enhancing continuous learning during recalibration via the use of a replay buffer and data augmentation. \n\nQuality: This paper presents results from a longitudinal online BCI study to demonstrate utility of the proposed approach, which is the gold standard in evaluating BCI algorithms. The inclusion of results from offline analysis also enhances the paper.  \n\nClarity: The paper is very well-written and organised. Areas needing clarity and suggestions to improve readability are noted below.\n\nSignificance: This work is highly relevant to developing automated approaches to periodically recalibrate BCIs for communication for long-term BCI use with minimal user disruptions.  The approach is applicable to general BCIs for communication. Results from a longitudinal online study with a BCI user from a target end user population increase the impact of the paper.\n\nWEAKNESSES:\n-\tLow sample size. The paper presents results from one participant with generally high performance level, so difficult to assess the utility across a broad range of user performance levels.  The low sample size is understandable given the challenge with conducting studies in target BCI end-user populations; in particular, this is an iBCI study, in contrast to a non-invasive BCI study. The authors recognise the limitation of the lack of generalisability of results given the low sample size. The authors include results from simulations using data from the current participant to investigate the impact of a broad range of character error rates on the recalibration performance (Figure 5).\n\n-\tPotential order effects due to lack of randomisation of the no recalibration block (block 2) and the recalibration blocks (blocks 3 and 4). If understood correctly, the RNN decoder is updated with the data from the current calibration block and does not rely on data from the seed model block, so the testing order could be randomised daily to mitigate order effects. \n\n-\tThere is the confound of the recalibration blocks (blocks 3 and 4) displaying the LM-decoded outputs (“the top-scored result was displayed on the screen as the final decoded sentence.”) vs. the no recalibration blocks (block 2) displaying the RNN-decoded outputs. This difference in feedback may potentially impact the BCI user experience (mental state, motivation, etc.) and further compound order effects as the user is aware given the fixed block order.\n\nQUESTIONS:\n-\t“The second block employed a frozen seed model, trained on a combination of data from [46] and data collected prior to this evaluation (21 sessions in total).” Are the “data collected prior to this evaluation” from the current participant? Also referred to as “newly collected data” earlier in the paper. Are these 21 sessions prior to day 0?\n\n- “updating the decoder after every sentence.” How is the end of a sentence detected? Automatically?\n\n- Equation 1: \\theta_k, where k denotes a day implies that the recalibration uses all the data from that day. Is Equation 1 supposed to be \\theta_{x, k}, where x refers to sentence?\n\n-\tWhat are the character error rates of the LM-decoded outputs (Figure 2b)? This is to assess whether the use of LM-based correction at word level introduces errors at the character level (vs. Figure 2a with RNN-decoder outputs). (Can be inferred based on simulations in figure 5).\n\n-\tFigure 2: It would be useful to include results from recalibration with the ground truth labels. Why are the amounts of data collection different on day 0 and day 105 different? If understood correctly, day 0 does not have four blocks. This needs to be specified/clarified in the text/caption.\n\n-\tInconsistency:  Over an approximately 8-month period, our participant used the iBCI system monthly and wrote on average 57.7 sentences per usage session.” vs. “X’s writing speed was 69.5 ± 8.6 characters per minute on average.” \n\n-\tWhat is “per-frame labeling”?\n\n-\tx_{i, t}, y_{i, t}: define subscript i. \n\n-\tDefine all acronyms and variables in the captions and provide more context such that the captions standalone to understand the content of the presented information without necessarily referencing the text. Figure and table captions should be more informative to minimise confusion/misinterpreting the CER% or WER% results across figures/tables. For example, the mismatch between the average online WER % with CORP in table 1 vs. figure 2 is explained in the text and not the figure caption. Same with Figure 3. Captions should state if results are from offline vs. online analysis, specific blocks used during recalibration, etc., for clarity.\n\n-\tCheck that the contrast between line styles is preserved when figures are in grayscale.\n\nLIMITATIONS:\n- More discussion is needed on the societal impact of the BCI technology. In particular, how effectively the BCI communicates a user’s intent when there is no alternative. There is the potential concern that the LM may be more dominant than the user’s intent, particularly in cases with low BCI prediction accuracy. \n\n- “we do not anticipate pseudolabel quality to be a major concern in practice. This is because future clinically viable iBCIs are expected to have a high decoding accuracy...  Users are also likely to utilize the iBCI frequently, resulting in small nonstationarities most of the time. ... we believe that the pseudo-labels will have high accuracy, allowing CORP to sustain the iBCIs accuracy indefinitely.” Given the low sample sizes and no current data from “future clinically viable iBCIs”, these claims are questionable. There are issues related to recording quality with long term use of intracortical electrodes.", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 7, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 4, "SOUNDNESS_CORRECTNESS": 3, "DATE": "2023-07-12"}

{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\nEdit: I have read the rebuttal and am satisfied with the authors' comments. I stand by my score and would like to see this paper accepted.\n\n########################################################################\n\nIn this work, the authors tackle the issue of non-stationarity in decoding technologies specifically for handwriting recognition. They propose several methodological steps to address like the use of a replay buffer, data augmentation and most importantly, an n-gram language model. They use data from a longitudinal study spanning over 200 days where they collect data from a single participant. Their model comprises an affine transform for each day followed by a 2-layer RNN that outputs character probabilities. These probabilities are then fed into a pertained n-gram language model that then generates plausible words (with beam search). The top-n words are then fed into GPT2-XL to rerank and the best word is displayed back to the participant. The output of the LM is also fed into a calibrator that uses this data along with some percentage of past data to recalibrate the RNN.\n\nThe authors show that this model achieves very good character error rate and reasonable word error rate over a model that doesn't recalibrate for stationarity and an alignment method. Through several experiments, they also show the usefulness of different model components, hyperparameter choices and the reliability of the pseudo-labels.\n\nSTRENGTHS:\nStrengths:\n1. Very interesting applications of ML techniques to handwriting decoding.\n2. Well written and easy to follow.\n3. Achieves very good performance and authors clearly show through many experiments how their method alleviates the problem of non-stationarity.\n4. Good analyses on model choice with ablations and many different parameter sets.\n\nWEAKNESSES:\nWeaknesses: No major weaknesses apart from some questions below and a few missing details.\n\nQUESTIONS:\nHow long does the assumption of some stationarity hold? The authors say hat prior work found only a 1.5% error rate but is this something we can evaluate with respect to the drop in calibration error to find the most optimal window?\n\nRe hyperparameter tuning in figure 4: It was not clear what the shaded region represented here- standard error across all decoded characters? Also, how stable is this across different days, ie., does the non-stationarity affect the plots substantially?\n\nThere were limited details provided on the affine transform for each day. How is the affine transform for each day trained and what role does it play in the online decoding system?\n\nClarification: Since the LM outputs word n-grams, I assume that this is segmented into characters to provide the pseudo `y's`?\n\nMinor: What `p`was used in the final model? (esp for Table 4) Similarly, what is the `n` used for the GPT2-XL ranking step?\n\nI would also encourage the authors to allude to the effect of replay buffer size and other modeling parameters on CER in the main text.\n\nLIMITATIONS:\nYes, potential limitations were discussed.", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 8, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 3, "SOUNDNESS_CORRECTNESS": 3, "DATE": "2023-07-26"}