Physiological Noise Augmentation Improves Non-Invasive Brain-to-Speech
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Non-invasive brain-to-speech decoding aims to restore communication to patients suffering from neurodegenerative disease, without the risks of neurosurgery. Existing MEG- and EEG-based methods, while scalable, continue to suffer from high word error rates driven by relatively low signal-to-noise ratios compared to invasive recordings. We propose physiological noise augmentation (PNA), a data augmentation method that explicitly trains decoders to become invariant to task-agnostic artifacts (e.g. ocular and cardiac activity). PNA draws inspiration from automatic speech recognition systems, where environmental noise (e.g. dogs barking, city traffic) is added to clean speech to improve robustness. Analogously, we decompose brain recordings into clean data and noise artifacts using independent component analysis (ICA), before scaling and remixing to generate biophysically realistic, label-preserving training examples. We show that PNA approximates anisotropic regularization, penalizing decoder sensitivity along artifact-dominated directions. On MegNIST, a 12k-trial imagined-digit MEG dataset, PNA with 10-trial averaging improves EEGNet decoding accuracy by 4.7 percentage points (absolute) over training on real data alone. Our results suggest that artifact-aware augmentation and trial averaging are complementary tools for improving robustness in non-invasive speech BCIs.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 65 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Jul 2026.
Builds on
24 of 65 references.
References · 24
- 2023Model evaluation for extreme riskscited by 177
- 2023Frontier AI Regulation: Managing Emerging Risks to Public Safetycited by 98
- 2020Preventing Repeated Real World AI Failures by Cataloging Incidents: The AI Incident Databasecited by 96
- 2025Your Agent May Misevolve: Emergent Risks in Self-evolving LLM Agentscited by 62
- 2026From Agent Traces to Trust: A Survey of Evidence Tracing and Execution Provenance in LLM Agentscited by 37
- 2021A Framework of Severity for Harmful Content Onlinecited by 23
- 2024Towards Trustworthy AI: A Review of Ethical and Robust Large Language Modelscited by 22
- 2025Async Control: Stress-testing Asynchronous Control Measures for LLM Agentscited by 22
- 2024Safety cases for frontier AIcited by 18
- 2024The AI risk repository: A meta-review, database, and taxonomy of risks from artificial intelligencecited by 16
- 2025A False Sense of Privacy: Evaluating Textual Data Sanitization Beyond Surface-level Privacy Leakagecited by 16
- 2022A taxonomic system for failure cause analysis of open source AI incidentscited by 9
12 more
- 2023Deployment Corrections: An incident response framework for frontier AI modelscited by 9
- 2024Trustworthy AI: Securing Sensitive Data in Large Language Modelscited by 7
- 2024The Role of Governments in Increasing Interconnected Post-Deployment Monitoring of AIcited by 7
- 2023Exploring the Relevance of Data Privacy-Enhancing Technologies for AI Governance Use Casescited by 6
- 2025Designing Incident Reporting Systems for Harms from General-Purpose AIcited by 6
- 2025Standardised schema and taxonomy for AI incident databases in critical digital infrastructurecited by 5
- 2025From Incidents to Insights: Patterns of Responsibility following AI Harmscited by 5
- 2025Incident Analysis for AI Agentscited by 5
- 2023Slice it up: Unmasking User Identities in Smartwatch Health Datacited by 4
- 2025An Empirical Study of Production Incidents in Generative AI Cloud Servicescited by 3
- 2025The AI Model Risk Catalog: What Developers and Researchers Miss About Real-World AI Harmscited by 3
- 2025AI Harmonics: a human-centric and harms severity-adaptive AI risk assessment frameworkcited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.