AI system restores speech for paralyzed patients using own voice
This innovative technology, developed by teams at UC Berkeley and UC San Francisco, combines brain-computer interfaces (BCI) with advanced artificial intelligence to decode neural activity into audible speech.
Compared to other recent attempts to create speech from brain signals, this new system is a major advancement.
The system uses devices such as high-density electrode arrays that record neural activity directly from the brain's surface. It also works with microelectrodes that penetrate the brain's surface and non-invasive surface electromyography sensors placed on the face to measure muscle activity. These devices tap into the brain to measure neural activity, which the AI then learns to transform into the sounds of the patient's voice.
The neuroprosthesis samples neural data from the brain's motor cortex, the area controlling speech production, and AI decodes that data into speech. According to study co-lead author Cheol Jun Cho, the neuroprosthesis intercepts signals where the thought is translated into articulation and, in the middle of that, motor control.
One of the key challenges was mapping neural data to speech output when the patient had no residual vocalization. The researchers overcame this by using a pre-trained text-to-speech model and the patient's pre-injury voice to fill in the missing details.
This technology has the potential to significantly improve the quality of life for people with paralysis and conditions like ALS. It allows them to communicate their needs, express complex thoughts and connect with loved ones more naturally.
"It is exciting that the latest AI advances are greatly accelerating BCIs for practical real-world use in the near future," UCSF neurosurgeon Edward Chang said.
The next steps include speeding up the AI's processing, making the output voice more expressive and exploring ways to incorporate tone, pitch and loudness variations into the synthesized speech. Researchers also aim to decode paralinguistic features from brain activity to reflect changes in tone, pitch and loudness.
What's truly amazing about this AI is that it doesn't just translate brain signals into any kind of speech. It's aiming for natural speech, using the patient's own voice. It's like giving them their voice back, which is a game changer. It gives new hope for effective communication and renewed connections for many individuals.
What role do you think government and regulatory bodies should play in overseeing the development and use of brain-computer interfaces? Let us know by writing us at Cyberguy.com/Contact.
For more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/Newsletter.
Follow Kurt on his social channels:
Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions:
New from Kurt:
Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Top economist Brad DeLong to recent college grads: Don't blame AI for job struggles—blame the sputtering economy
As recent college graduates face one of the toughest job markets in years, Berkeley economist and voluble Substacker Brad DeLong has a message for those struggling to land their first full-time gig: Artificial intelligence (AI) and automation are not to blame. Larger forces are at work. DeLong, a professor at UC Berkeley and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, argued in a recent essay that the challenges confronting young job-seekers today are primarily driven by widespread policy uncertainty and a sluggish economy—not by the rapid rise of AI tools like ChatGPT or data-crunching robots. DeLong offered his analysis on July 23, roughly 10 days before the July jobs report stunned markets, revealing that the economy has been much weaker than previously thought for several months. Prominent business leaders had also flagged troubling signs in the economy before the July jobs report dropped. IBM Vice Chair and former Trump advisor Gary Cohn went on CNBC a day before the jobs data, noting 'warning signs below the surface.' Cohn said he pays close attention to the quits rate in the monthly JOLTS data, arguing that 150,000 fewer quits was an ominous sign of poor economic health. DeLong sounded a prophetic note, writing that 'policy uncertainty' over trade, immigration, inflation, and technology has 'paralyzed business planning,' leading to a self-reinforcing cycle of hiring freezes. New entrants to the job market are bearing the brunt of the retreat to risk aversion. In other words, the college graduate class of 2025 is really unlucky. The economist argued that the uncertainty causes companies to delay major decisions—including hiring—in the face of an unpredictable policy environment. 'This risk aversion is particularly damaging for those at the start of their careers, who rely on a steady flow of entry-level openings to get a foot in the door,' he wrote. DeLong has sounded similar warnings of a slowdown for years. He talked to Fortune in 2022 about his theory of the economy starting to sputter from his book Slouching Towards Utopia. In 2025, he wrote, the big story in the jobs market is not actually AI, but something different. Policy paralysis So, what's really keeping freshly minted graduates from clinching that all-important first job? DeLong cited Bloomberg BusinessWeek's Amanda Mull and her theory about 'stochastic uncertainty'—a cocktail of unpredictability around government policies, trade, immigration, and inflation. Companies aren't firing; instead, they're just waiting. And many are delaying new hires in anticipation of possible sudden shifts in tariffs, inflation rates, and regulatory environments. The result is a wait-and-see climate where employers, worried about future economic shocks, have selected caution over expansion. The holding pattern hits new entrants to the workforce especially hard. While overall unemployment in the U.S. remains low, the situation is uniquely difficult for new graduates relative to the rest of the workforce. Citing economists including Paul Krugman, DeLong noted that while the absolute unemployment rate for college graduates isn't alarming, the gap between graduate unemployment and general unemployment rates is at record highs. In the past, higher education reliably led to lower unemployment, but now recent grads are struggling 'by a large margin' compared to previous generations. As previously reported by Fortune Intelligence, Goldman Sachs has argued that the college degree 'safety premium' is mostly gone. The team, led by Goldman's chief economist Jan Hatzius, wrote: 'Recent data suggests that the labor market for recent college graduates has weakened at a time when the broader labor market has appeared healthy.' It also found that since 1997, young workers without a college degree have become much less likely to even look for work, with their participation rate dropping by seven percentage points. Mull cited an analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York which found that tech and design fields, including computer science, computer engineering, and graphic design, are seeing unemployment rates above 7% for new graduates. Why the AI hype misses the mark Although the tech sector is buzzing about AI's potential to replace junior analysts or automate entry-level tasks, DeLong urged caution in assigning blame. In his typical style, he noted, 'there is still [no] hard and not even a semi-convincing soft narrative that 'AI is to blame' for entry-level job scarcity.' Hiring slowdowns, he pointed out, are driven by broader economic forces: uncertainty, risk aversion, and changes in how companies invest. Here again, DeLong's analysis rhymes and aligns with recent research from Goldman's Hatzius. The bank's quarterly 'AI Adoption Tracker,' issued in July, found that the unemployment rate for AI-exposed occupations had reconciled with the wider economy, which contradicts fears of mass displacement. They also noted there have been no recent layoff announcements explicitly citing AI as the cause, underscoring that it's contained to disruption of specific functions, not entire industries. Crucially, he argued, rather than hiring people, companies in the tech sector are splurging on 'the hardware that powers artificial intelligence'—notably Nvidia's high-performance chips—fueling a boom in capital investment while sidelining junior hires. 'For firms, the calculus is straightforward: Investing in AI infrastructure is seen as a ticket to future competitiveness, while hiring junior staff is a cost that can be postponed.' Underpinning these trends is a shift away from any and all risk. Employers prefer to hire for specific short-term needs and are less willing to invest in developing new talent—leaving young applicants caught in a cycle where 'just getting your foot in the door' is more difficult than ever. Incumbent workers, worried about job market uncertainty, are less likely to change jobs, leading to fewer openings and greater stagnation. DeLong's analysis harmonized with Goldman Sachs' findings about the declining premium attached with a college degree: 'For the longer-run, the rise in the college wage premium is over, and a decline has (probably) begun.' For decades, he continued, a college degree was a ticket to higher earnings, and the labor market rewarded those with advanced skills and credentials. In recent years, though, 'this has plateaued and may even be falling.' The causes are complex, he added, but the takeaway: While degrees remain valuable, they are no longer the ever-ascending ticket to prosperity they once were. These comments confirm the gloomy remarks of University of Connecticut professor emeritus Peter Turchin, who recently talked with Fortune about the declining status of the upper middle class in 21st century America. When asked where else he sees this manifesting in modern life, Turchin said, 'It's actually everywhere you look. 'Look at the overproduction of university degrees,' he said, arguing that the decreasing premium that Goldman and DeLong write about shows up in declining rates of college enrollment and high rates of recent graduate unemployment. 'There is overproduction of university degrees and the value of a university degree actually declines.' DeLong's bottom line for recent grads: Blame a risk-averse business climate, not technology, for today's job woes. And now that we know the economy may have been much more risk-averse in 2025 than previously, DeLong's warnings are worth revisiting. DeLong did not respond to a request for comment. For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
San Francisco Chronicle
4 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
UCSF doctor leads fight to restore wildfire health research grants cut by Trump order
SACRAMENTO — As smoke from Canadian wildfires drifted across North America and western U.S. states girded for their annual fire siege, Neeta Thakur was well into her search for ways to offset the damage of such fumes to people's health, especially among minority and low-income communities. For more than a decade, the UC San Francisco researcher relied on federal grants without incident. But Thakur, a doctor and a scientist, suddenly found herself leading the charge for public health science against President Donald Trump's political ideology. Thakur, 45, a pulmonologist who also is medical director of the Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital Chest Clinic, is the lead plaintiff among six UC researchers who in June won a class-action preliminary injunction against the efforts of several federal agencies to carry out Trump's executive orders seeking to eliminate research grants deemed to focus on areas of diversity, equity and inclusion. The administration has filed a notice of appeal, and the outcome, whether or not she and her colleagues prevail, could influence both the future of academic research and the health of those she's spent her life trying to help. 'When this moment hit us, where science was really under attack and lives are at stake, it doesn't surprise me that she stepped up,' said Margot Kushel, who directs the UCSF Action Research Center for Health Equity and has known Thakur for more than a decade through their work at the center and San Francisco General, the public county hospital. 'We don't think our work should be political, to be honest,' Kushel said. 'Saving people's lives and making sure people don't die doesn't seem to me that it should be a partisan issue.' Thakur said that after the abrupt funding cuts, she and the other researchers 'felt pretty powerless and found that the class-action lawsuit was a way for us to join together and sort of take a stance.' The suit was filed independently by the researchers and allowed them to show the harm inflicted not just on their own work 'but more broadly on public health and public health research,' she said. Thakur's study, which received more than $1.3 million in funding from the Environmental Protection Agency and was set to run through November, explores the impact of increased wildfire smoke on low-income communities and communities of color, populations that already experience heightened pollution and other environmental health disparities. The goal is to find ways to help residents limit their smoke exposure, Thakur said, adding that the results could help people no matter their circumstances. Preliminary findings show that smoke can trigger breathing emergencies among children days after exposure, knowledge that could lead to better treatment, and that smoke intensity may peak during just a few hours when protection is most needed, indicating the need for more precise and timely safety messaging. Thakur said her studies on health equity and health disparities saw growing federal support during the COVID pandemic and a national focus on racism spurred by the murder of George Floyd. The EPA had solicited the grant in 2021 for her and her team to research how climate change affects underserved communities. Trump, in one of several executive orders blocking federal funding for DEI programs, said they 'use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences' that he said have 'prioritized how people were born instead of what they were capable of doing.' EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in March that, in cooperation with the Department of Government Efficiency, the administration had canceled more than 400 grants topping $2 billion 'to rein in wasteful federal spending.' The order by U.S. District Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco temporarily blocking the grant terminations covered the EPA, as well as grants by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Science Foundation. Lin's ruling was not a nationwide injunction of the sort restricted by the U.S. Supreme Court in a June decision. The Trump administration agencies affected by the order have reinstated the UC grants as the lawsuit proceeds. The government filed a motion for a temporary stay on the order pending the outcome of its appeal, but a decision had not been issued as of publication. The EPA declined to comment on the judge's order blocking the attempted cancellation of the research funding, citing the ongoing litigation, and attorneys representing the government did not respond to requests for comment. Thakur defends the need for research that spotlights disadvantaged communities. Her interest in health equity stems from childhood experiences. The daughter of immigrants from India, with a physician and an engineer as parents, she grew up relatively well-off in a mixed-income neighborhood in Phoenix. While she prospered, however, she had friends who couldn't afford college or became pregnant as teenagers. 'I see my research being directed towards trying to understand how where you live and what you experience impacts your health,' Thakur said. When the grants were suspended in April, the researchers were unable to finish identifying ways to help protect communities from wildfire smoke. Thakur had to dismiss a student intern and dip into discretionary funds to pay her postdoctoral fellow. At least three research papers that could have directly affected public health were in danger of going unpublished without the funding, she said. The government reinstated her team's grants about three weeks after the judge's order, and Thakur is in the process of picking up the pieces. She's hopeful that researchers can publish two of the three studies they were working on. Thakur said she is now cautiously optimistic after experiencing 'a roller coaster of emotions.' Putting together a project and conducting the research takes years, she said, so 'to have all of that end suddenly, it brought me a range of emotions one thinks about when folks are experiencing grief. There's denial, anger.' But the Trump administration's actions have already sapped morale in the field. Rebecca Sugrue, Thakur's postdoctoral fellow and an expert in health equity and climate change, is rethinking her entire career path. 'I kind of came to the realization that all the expertise I had built up were the kind of things that were being deprioritized,' Sugrue said. She said she and other postdoctoral students and more junior members of the research team had even had discussions about leaving academia: ''Unstable' and 'uncertain' were words that were used a lot.' The lasting damage is not lost on Thakur. If the grants ultimately disappear, universities won't have the typical programs to train students or to support academic research, she said, adding that, 'I think there are concerns that the sort of divestment from science and research in these particular areas will cause generations of impact.'
Politico
4 days ago
- Politico
Senate appropriators defend the NIH
WASHINGTON WATCH Senate appropriators came out hard in support of the National Institutes of Health on Thursday, giving the agency a $400 million funding boost for the 2026 fiscal year. How so: The Senate Appropriations Committee upped the agency's budget to $48.7 billion in the 2026 funding bill that cleared the panel with a 26-3 vote Thursday. If the bill becomes law, it would increase cancer research by $150 million; Alzheimer's research by $100 million and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, research by $25 million. The NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Office of Research on Women's Health would each get a $30 million boost. Research on maternal mortality, diabetes and rare diseases would also see an increase, among others. Why it matters: The funding boost is a rebuke from both Republicans and Democrats to the Trump administration's demand to decrease the NIH funding in the next fiscal year by as much as 40 percent, or $18 billion. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said the legislation 'prioritizes funding to help make Americans healthier and supports life-saving medical research.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the panel, said the budget increase was a message to 'the scientists wondering if there will even be an NIH by the end of this administration. This committee's resounding message is: 'Yes, Congress has your back.'' Murray urged scientists to continue their research in the U.S. despite the efforts of other countries to lure them away. The appropriators also adopted an amendment Thursday that would limit the Trump administration's control over NIH research funding. An amendment in the bill's manager's package limits the administration's plan to shift funding for most NIH grants from a multiyear schedule to an upfront single-year payment. The amendment states that no funds appropriated in the fiscal 2026 spending bill can be used to increase the proportion of grants fully funded in the first year of the award, compared with fiscal 2024. The NIH can only increase that proportion of forward-funded grants if the agency ensures it isn't cutting grants to do so. What's next: The bill is cleared for floor action. But congressional leaders haven't started bipartisan negotiations toward overall government funding totals, increasing the odds that lawmakers will again resort to a stopgap funding patch before the next fiscal year starts on Oct. 1. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. Peacock feathers have reflective structures that can amplify light into a laser beam, Science reports. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. MORNING MONEY: CAPITAL RISK — POLITICO's flagship financial newsletter has a new Friday edition built for the economic era we're living in: one shaped by political volatility, disruption and a wave of policy decisions with sector-wide consequences. Each week, Morning Money: Capital Risk brings sharp reporting and analysis on how political risk is moving markets and how investors are adapting. Want to know how health care regulation, tariffs, or court rulings could ripple through the economy? Start here. WORLD VIEW A draft United Nations plan to make the world healthier no longer includes several targets cracking down on sugary drinks, trans fats and tobacco to prevent and control noncommunicable diseases globally. Struck down: A target of 80 percent of countries taxing sugary drinks at levels recommended by the World Health Organization by 2030, POLITICO's Rory O'Neill reports. That goal was a pillar of the initial draft, which will take the form of a nonbinding political declaration world leaders are expected to endorse at a Sept. 25 meeting in New York, on the margins of the U.N. General Assembly. The latest version has also dropped commitments to eliminate trans fats and aims instead to reduce them to the 'lowest level possible.' It also requires front-of-pack labels with nutritional information. A requirement for health warnings on tobacco packaging to be graphic and accompanied by elements that make it unattractive to consumers is also gone. The new draft has softer language on tobacco advertising, requiring countries to restrict it instead of eliminate it. 'Make no mistake, the Declaration in its current form is a backslide,' said Alison Cox, director of policy and advocacy at the NCD Alliance, in a statement. The alliance is a Switzerland-based civil society group working to promote chronic disease prevention. Why it matters: World leaders aim to reduce premature mortality from noncommunicable diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes by 2030 through prevention and treatment and to improve mental health and well-being globally. Noncommunicable diseases killed 18 million people under age 70 in 2021, according to the WHO. Most deaths were in low- and middle-income countries. The aims align with the U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again agenda, but it's unclear how much the U.S. is involved in drafting the final text. HHS did not respond to a request for comment. What's next: Negotiators are meeting this week in New York to discuss the text.
