← All interfaces

Handwriting BCI (Willett et al., 2021)

Measured by Willett, Avansino, Hochberg, Henderson & Shenoy · Nature 593 (2021)

Intracortical Handwriting invasive 2021

Inputs

The measured or assumed values behind the calculations, each with its source.

N = 31
Character set: 26 lowercase letters + comma, apostrophe, question mark, period, space (Methods)
rate = 90 char/min
Real-time copy-typing speed (Abstract; Fig. 2)
P = 0.941
Raw online character accuracy (5.9% character error rate, no language model). With a general-purpose autocorrect, >99%.
WER = 0.251
25.1% raw word error rate for online output, versus 5.9% raw character error rate (Table 1).

Strictest ITR

Each scoring method is an upper bound on the channel, so the headline is the strictest (smallest) one for this entry. Use the score selector on the home page to view any single method across entries.

Strictest Shannon (text) Recomputed
Character-entropy throughput
Effective bits transmitted as English text
1.41 bits/s
  1. Error-corrected characters per minute

    (1 − CER) × rate = 0.941 × 90 = 84.7 net char/min
  2. Shannon per-character entropy of English

    H ≈ 1.0 bit/char

    English letters are redundant, so the atlas-ranked figure uses 1 bit/char for consistency with the typing entries rather than the raw 31-symbol alphabet size.

  3. Information transfer rate

    84.7 char/min × 1.0 bit/char ÷ 60 s/min = 1.41 bits/s

What counts as a bit depends on the action space. The number of distinguishable actions and how likely each one is are design choices of the task, not the sensing hardware. The same modality can present a fixed set of targets, a set pruned per step by a grammar or language model, or a continuous control space. Each of these changes how many actions are live and how the probability mass is spread, and therefore the information per selection. Read the action space below before comparing headline numbers across entries.

Action space

What the user can produce at each step, and how those options are distributed.

Structure
Fixed set of targets
Size
31 distinguishable actions
Prior
Non-uniform: some actions more likely than others
Notes
Per-character classification of attempted handwriting over a 31-symbol set. The reference figure uses the RAW decoder (no language model); the headline >99% accuracy adds an autocorrect/language model, which would make the prior strongly context-conditioned. English letters are not equiprobable, so even the raw figure is an upper bound on transmitted information. The paper also reports a stricter raw word error rate; that word-level view is included as a supplementary calculation.

Comparability The strictest bound here is the Shannon entropy of the output text, under one predictor held constant across the whole atlas (≈1 bit per character). That shared predictor makes it directly comparable to every other text entry (keyboards, spellers, silent speech and speech BCIs) regardless of prior or vocabulary size. For most text interfaces it comes out tighter than the raw-selection bounds, but not always. Where a small vocabulary makes Wolpaw tighter, that wins instead. Any Fitts, Wolpaw or log₂(N) figure shown below is another bound on the same channel. Switch the home-page score selector to compare one across entries.

Other score types

Bounds the atlas keeps out of the default strictest headline: as-reported figures, alternate task conditions, or raw-channel ceilings that shouldn't win the headline by default. Each still carries a score type, so the home-page selector ranks this entry on it when you choose that type. Read its derivation before comparing across entries.

Shannon (text) Recomputed
Word-entropy throughput from raw WER
Effective bits transmitted as English words, using the stricter raw word-level error rate
1.12 bits/s
  1. Convert character rate to words per minute

    90 char/min ÷ 5.0 char/word ≈ 18.0 word/min

    Uses the same average English word length convention (one word = five characters) as the other word-entropy calculations.

  2. Apply raw word error rate

    (1 − WER) × rate = (1 − 0.251) × 18.0 ≈ 13.5 net word/min

    The 25.1% raw word error rate is much higher than the 5.9% raw character error rate because any character edit can make a whole word wrong.

  3. Shannon per-word entropy of English

    H ≈ 5.0 bits/word
  4. Information transfer rate

    13.5 word/min × 5.0 bits/word ÷ 60 s/min ≈ 1.12 bits/s
Wolpaw Recomputed
Wolpaw bitrate over N = 31 characters
Uniform-prior character metric (raw decoder)
6.51 bits/s
  1. Bits per selection (Wolpaw formula)

    B = log2(N) + P*log2(P) + (1-P)*log2((1-P)/(N-1))
      = log2(31) + 0.941*log2(0.941) + 0.059*log2(0.059/30)
      = 4.341 bits / selection

    Term 1 is the information if every choice were correct; terms 2-3 subtract the bits lost to the error rate, assumed spread evenly over the other N-1 targets.

  2. Selections per second

    T = 0.66667 s/selection  ->  1 / 0.66667 = 1.5 selections/s
  3. Information transfer rate

    ITR = B * selections/s = 4.341 * 1.5 = 6.512 bits/s
Nuyujukian Recomputed
Nuyujukian achieved bitrate over N = 31 characters
Achieved-bitrate view of the character channel, shown for comparison
6.49 bits/s
  1. Achieved-bitrate credit per net-correct character

    N = 31 → log2(N − 1) = log2(30) = 4.91 bits per net-correct selection (field-standard achieved bitrate, e.g. Webgrid; Nuyujukian 2015, which introduced the metric, used log2(N)).
  2. Net-correct character rate

    net-correct = 2P − 1 = 2(0.941) − 1 = 0.882 of characters. At 90 char/min (0.667 s/char) → 0.882 × 90 / 60 = 1.32 correct/s.

    A decoding error commits the wrong character rather than timing out, so incorrect = 1 − P. Same N (31), raw online character accuracy (94.1%, no language model) and character rate (90/min) as the entry's Wolpaw calc; netting each wrong character against a correct one (2P − 1) lands near the ~6.5 bits/s raw-decoder Wolpaw figure. Both are the uniform-prior character channel, above the 1.41 bits/s Shannon headline.

  3. Achieved bitrate

    4.91 bits × 1.32 correct/s = 6.49 bits/s.

Source

Authors
Willett, Avansino, Hochberg, Henderson & Shenoy
Publication
Nature 593, 2021
Paper
10.1038/s41586-021-03506-2
Reference
Open-access full text (PMC)