Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 8 minor 33 references

Architectural Exploration of Hybrid Neural Decoders for Neuromorphic Implantable BMI

T0 review · 5 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A tunable event filter lets a neuromorphic brain-machine interface decode hand velocity from a 554x sparser event stream, reaching R2=0.733 without separate spike sorting.

desk verdict A useful engineering exploration of decoding NCNS event streams for motor BMI, but missing EvFilter hyperparameters and error bars leave the small advantage over ground-truth spikes unsecured. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05983 v1 pith:M6C7MQT7 submitted 2025-05-09 cs.LG

Vivek Mohan , Biyan Zhou , Zhou Wang , Anil Bharath , Emmanuel Drakakis , Arindam Basu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords neuromorphicimplantablebrain-machineinterfaceevent-basedneuralsensingdecodingspikingnetworkseventfilterhandkinematicscompressionlow-powerimplant
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is trying to establish that a neuromorphic brain-machine interface can decode hand motion directly from its sparse event stream, without reconstructing the neural signal and without the conventional separate steps of spike detection and sorting. The authors add a tunable event filter to their compression-based neural sensing scheme; the filter suppresses background events by 192x, and when used as a spike detector by 554x, before feeding an ANN, a temporally segmented ANN, or a spiking neural network decoder. On a non-human primate reaching task, the best decoder reaches $R^2 = 0.733$ and the much cheaper SNN decoder reaches $R^2 \approx 0.70$ with 5-23x fewer computations and memory than NN and LSTM decoders. If the claim holds, wireless implants with many channels could avoid the power- and bandwidth-heavy preprocessing of conventional iBMIs and still control prosthetics or cursors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the EvFilter, a channel-wise temporal-neighborhood filter adapted from dynamic-vision-sensor background-activity filtering. It passes an incoming event on a channel only if at least $n_{\text{th}}$ events have occurred within a temporal window $\tau$ on that channel, with a refractory period $t_{\text{ref}}$ that can be set to zero or to about 1 ms; with a large $t_{\text{ref}}$ the filter becomes the spike detector EvFilter-SPD. This single mechanism does two jobs: it suppresses background events (192x reduction) and, in the SPD setting, reduces the stream to roughly one event per spike (554x reduction), while in both settings preserving or improving the kinematic information relative to ground-truth spikes. On the decoder side, the SNN decoder's binary input $\bar{x}_{\text{SNN}}(t) \in \{0,1\}^{N_{\text{ch}}}$ replaces multiply-accumulate with accumulation, which is what turns the event sparsity into 5-23x resource savings.

What would settle it

Run the same decoders on held-out recording sessions while choosing $n_{\text{th}}$, $\tau$, and $t_{\text{ref}}$ using only training reaches; if the resulting test $R^2$ with EvFilter-SPD no longer exceeds the test $R^2$ from binned ground-truth spike times, the paper's claim that the pipeline can replace spike detection fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the event stream generated by the neuromorphic compression sensing scheme, after passing through the EvFilter, carries enough information for hand-velocity decoding on its own, and that this information is actually easier to decode than the dataset's ground-truth spike times. In the authors' experiments, every decoder that was tested with both input types performed better when fed EvFilter or EvFilter-SPD output than when fed ground-truth spike times; the best mean score is $R^2 = 0.733$ for an LSTM with EvFilter-SPD. The SNN decoder reaches $R^2 = 0.703$ using binary per-channel inputs and accumulate-only operations, giving 5-23x compute and memory savings over NN and LSTM decoders. The paper concludes that the full conventional pipeline of signal recovery, spike detection, and spike sorting can be omitted, and that the filtered event stream can be decoded on-implant or on a low-power wearable.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the way neural recordings are converted into sparse events, and the filter settings used in that conversion, preserve the information needed to decode movement without being chosen by looking at the test data; otherwise the reported advantage over ground-truth spike times is an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A neuromorphic implant could transmit only filtered events, cutting the data volume by 192-554x while preserving motor-decoding accuracy, relaxing the main bandwidth constraint on wireless high-channel-count implants.
  • A shallow SNN decoder with binary inputs and accumulate-only operations is sufficient for hand-velocity decoding on this task, needing 5-23x fewer computations and memory than NN or LSTM decoders, which makes on-implant decoding plausible.
  • The ST-NN decoder with segmented time-bins recovers most of the LSTM's performance at 2.5x lower resources, showing that a small amount of temporal structure in the input features can substitute for a recurrent network.
  • When the sensor is event-based, conventional signal recovery, spike detection, and spike sorting can be removed from the iBMI pipeline; the filter/detector is co-designed with the decoder rather than a separate neural-signal preprocessing stage.
  • Because event-filtered inputs also improve linear and Kalman decoders, the benefit is not specific to deep networks; the filter itself is the main source of the quality gain.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the EvFilter's advantage is general, the same simple 'pass only events with several neighbors in the recent past' rule should transfer to other event-based neural sensors, such as peripheral-nerve or surface electrodes; a direct test is to reuse the default filter settings on a second recording session or species and compare against binned spikes.
  • The fact that EvFilter-SPD output beats ground-truth spike times suggests some of the retained events are not true spikes by the reference sorter's criteria but still carry kinematic information; decoding from only those 'extra' events would isolate and test that interpretation.
  • The resource comparisons count 32-bit operations and memory; actual implant benefit depends on filter hardware cost and wireless transmit energy, so an end-to-end chip measurement that includes the filter is the natural next step and could either confirm or shrink the reported 5-23x savings.
  • For closed-loop control, latency and smoothness matter as much as mean $R^2$; a natural extension is to test the SNN decoder in an online brain-controlled cursor task with continuous streams and no reach-segmented resets.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a decoding pipeline for neuromorphic implantable brain-machine interfaces (Neu-iBMI). It introduces EvFilter, a tunable event filter, and EvFilter-SPD, a spike-detector variant, which process events generated by the authors' earlier NCNS sensing scheme. The filtered events are fed to shallow ANN (NN and ST-NN), LSTM, and SNN decoders. On five recordings from a public non-human-primate reaching dataset, the pipeline reaches R2=0.73 with an LSTM decoder and R2=0.70 with an SNN decoder, while reducing event throughput by 192x and 554x compared with raw NCNS events. The authors claim that this eliminates the need for conventional signal recovery, spike detection, and sorting, and that the SNN decoder requires 5-23x fewer compute and memory resources than the compared ANN/LSTM decoders.

Significance. If the claims hold, the pipeline would be a meaningful step toward low-power, wireless neuromorphic BMI decoding. Strengths include the use of an external public dataset, an actual reaching/kinematic decoding task, hardware-oriented resource estimates via Neurobench, and a parameterizable filtering scheme that can trade off event reduction against decoding accuracy. The reported event-compression ratios (192x-554x) are impressive if reproducible. However, the central claims currently rest on small R2 differences over the GT-spike baseline, and the manuscript does not report the EvFilter hyperparameters, the hyperparameter selection procedure, or any variance statistics. Those omissions materially weaken the support for the main conclusions.

major comments (5)
  1. [§II-A, Table I] The EvFilter parameters nth, tau, and tref are defined in Section II-A but never reported, and the procedure by which they were chosen is not described. The central claim that EvFilter/EvFilter-SPD events preserve or improve decodable information over GT spike times rests on R2 differences of only 0.01-0.06 (e.g., ST-NN: 0.7070 EvFilter vs. 0.6823 GT; LSTM: 0.7331 EvFilter-SPD vs. 0.7233 GT). If these parameters were selected on the test recordings, the advantage could be a selection artifact. Please report the hyperparameter values and demonstrate that they were selected using only the validation splits (for example, by grid search on the validation reaches), and provide per-seed or per-session error bars.
  2. [§III-C, Table I] All R2 scores in Table I are single numbers without error bars, repeated seeds, or statistical tests. The paper ranks decoders and input representations based on differences as small as 0.01 (e.g., ST-NN EvFilter 0.7070 vs. GT 0.6823; LSTM EvFilter-SPD 0.7331 vs. EvFilter 0.7272; SNN EvFilter-SPD 0.7033 vs. EvFilter 0.6980). Single-run results cannot support these rankings. Please add repeated-seed or session-wise statistics, and where possible a significance test, to support the comparative claims.
  3. [Table I, §III-C2] The comparisons with external baselines (rEFH-dynamic [29], 2D-SNN [30], UKF [29]) are not controlled. These systems were trained on different data selections and with different protocols; the text itself concedes that rEFH-dynamic was trained on a much larger selection of datasets. The statement that event-based features 'outperform other popular decoding algorithms' is therefore not established by this table. Please either reimplement those baselines under identical train/validation/test splits and training pipelines, or restrict the claim to the internal comparisons among the decoders studied in this paper.
  4. [§III-A] The paper uses 'five recordings including the first and last day' from the NHP 'Indy' dataset, but it does not justify why these five recordings were selected. If the recordings were chosen after inspecting decoding performance, the aggregate R2 could be biased upward. Please state the inclusion criterion explicitly, or report results across all available sessions with per-session variability, so the reader can assess the generality of the findings.
  5. [Abstract, §I, §II-A] The abstract and introduction claim the pipeline eliminates 'the need for signal recovery, spike detection, or sorting,' yet Section II-A states that EvFilter-SPD is a spike detector realized as a special case of EvFilter. This is internally consistent only if 'eliminating' means there is no separate, conventional threshold-crossing and sorting stage with the detection integrated into the filter. As written, the claim is overstated and confusing. Please rewrite the claim to state precisely which conventional stages are removed and what role EvFilter-SPD plays.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract, §I, §III-D] The event-reduction factor is reported inconsistently: the contributions say '192−544×,' the abstract says '554×,' and Section III-D says '192× and 554× respectively.' Please correct this inconsistency (presumably 192x and 554x).
  2. [§II-B1] The text says 'hidden layer 1 and 2 with 32 and 48 layers,' but the intended meaning is clearly 32 and 48 neurons. Please fix this wording.
  3. [§II-B1, §III-C1] There is an inconsistency in the dropout rate: Section II-B1 states 'dropout (50% probability),' while Section III-C1 says 'a dropout rate between 0.3−0.5.' Please clarify which dropout rates were used and for which models.
  4. [Table II] Table II is difficult to read because the columns are not visually separated (e.g., '0.6571 3643.952 0 4.866 20.856' runs together), and some rows appear to lack the Memory column. Please reformat the table with clear column alignment and verify that all entries are present.
  5. [Eq. (5)] The notation 'Sout[t−1]θ' in the membrane-potential update is ambiguous; please insert an explicit multiplication sign and define Sout consistently with the subsequent firing rule.
  6. [References] Reference [28] is cited as an arXiv preprint; if a peer-reviewed version has been published, please update the citation.
  7. [Abstract, Table I] The abstract highlights 'R2=0.73' without noting that this value is achieved by the LSTM decoder on EvFilter-SPD input, not by the resource-efficient SNN decoder (R2≈0.70). Please clarify this in the abstract to avoid overstating the performance of the low-resource decoders.
  8. [Table I] The SNN row is labeled 'SNN Stream' and has no T_bin entry; please enter '—' or 'streaming (no binning)' to make the table self-explanatory.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: decoding is evaluated on held-out reaches from an external NHP dataset against an external GT spike baseline.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The central empirical result is the R2 of ANN/SNN decoders on NCNS event inputs, measured on reaches from the external Indy dataset [29] that are split into training (50%), validation (25%), and test (25%) sets by reach. The comparison in Table I uses 'GT Spike Times' as a baseline; those spike times are ground-truth labels supplied by the dataset, not constructed from the EvFilter outputs, so the claimed advantage of EvFilter/EvFilter-SPD features is an experimentally measured difference, not an equivalence by construction. The paper does rely on the authors' prior NCNS simulation ([8], [9]) to generate the event stream and on [28] for LIF dynamics and hidden-layer sizes; these are self-citations, but they supply modeling infrastructure rather than a forced conclusion, and the decoding performance itself is independently tested on external data. The unreported EvFilter hyperparameters (nth, tau, tref) and lack of repeated-seed error bars are reproducibility and experimental-design concerns, not evidence of circularity: no text shows these parameters were fitted to the test set or that any predicted quantity is defined in terms of the evaluation target. No equation in the manuscript reduces to its inputs by construction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely from the authors' own prior work to rule out alternatives. Therefore the paper receives a no-circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the authors' prior NCNS event-generation scheme and on undisclosed EvFilter parameters. The encoder pipeline is treated as a given, which introduces a circularity burden; the decoder training is conventional supervised learning.

free parameters (4)
  • EvFilter threshold nth and temporal window tau
    The event filter passes events if at least nth prior events occur within tau (Section II-A). These values are not specified in the paper, so their selection procedure is unknown.
  • Refractory period tref for EvFilter-SPD = typically 1 ms
    Chosen to allow one detection per spike; the exact value and its tuning are not detailed (Section II-A).
  • Binning duration Tbin = 200 ms for NN/ST-NN, 34 ms for LSTM, stream for SNN
    These bin sizes are chosen per decoder; the selection method is not reported; performance depends on them.
  • Dropout rate and L2 regularization = 0.3-0.5 and 0.005-0.2
    These hyperparameters are tuned, though the exact values per model are not given; they affect the reported R2.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The NCNS event-generation simulation faithfully captures the spikes and background activity of the raw neural signal.
    Invoked in Section III-A, where raw baseband recordings are converted to neural events following the NCNS pipeline from [8], [9].
  • domain assumption The public NHP reaching dataset provides accurate spike times and hand kinematics for training and evaluation.
    The dataset [29] is used as ground truth for both GT spike times and movement labels (Section III-A).
  • domain assumption Reach-based 50/25/25 splits produce training and test sets that are independent enough for reliable evaluation.
    Splitting by number of reaches (Section III-A) may leak session-specific information if reaches from the same session appear in both train and test.
  • domain assumption The Neurobench harness provides valid estimates of compute and memory for comparing decoder architectures.
    Used in Section III-D for the hardware implication estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Architectural Exploration of Hybrid Neural Decoders for Neuromorphic Implantable BMI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M6C7MQT7

@misc{pith2026250505983,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Architectural Exploration of Hybrid Neural Decoders for Neuromorphic Implantable BMI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M6C7MQT7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05983}
}
read the original abstract

This work presents an efficient decoding pipeline for neuromorphic implantable brain-machine interfaces (Neu-iBMI), leveraging sparse neural event data from an event-based neural sensing scheme. We introduce a tunable event filter (EvFilter), which also functions as a spike detector (EvFilter-SPD), significantly reducing the number of events processed for decoding by 192X and 554X, respectively. The proposed pipeline achieves high decoding performance, up to R^2=0.73, with ANN- and SNN-based decoders, eliminating the need for signal recovery, spike detection, or sorting, commonly performed in conventional iBMI systems. The SNN-Decoder reduces computations and memory required by 5-23X compared to NN-, and LSTM-Decoders, while the ST-NN-Decoder delivers similar performance to an LSTM-Decoder requiring 2.5X fewer resources. This streamlined approach significantly reduces computational and memory demands, making it ideal for low-power, on-implant, or wearable iBMIs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05983 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Neural decoding pipeline for NCNS-based ( [8], [9]) Neu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Compression ratio improvement with EvFilter/EvFilter-SPD. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Architectural exploration of neuromorphic compression based neural sensing for next-gen wireless implantable-BMI,

    V . Mohan, W. P. Tay, and A. Basu, “Architectural exploration of neuromorphic compression based neural sensing for next-gen wireless implantable-BMI,” in 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) , 2023, pp. 1–5

    work page 2023

  2. [9]

    Towards neuromorphic compression based neural sensing for next-generation wireless iBMI,

    V . Mohan, W. P. Tay and A. Basu, “Towards neuromorphic compression based neural sensing for next-generation wireless iBMI,” Neuromorphic Computing and Engineering , vol. 5, no. 1, p. 014004, Jan 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [29]

    Nonhuman primate reaching with multichannel sensorimotor cortex electrophysiology,

    J. E. O’Doherty, M. M. B. Cardoso, J. G. Makin, and P. N. Sabes, “Nonhuman primate reaching with multichannel sensorimotor cortex electrophysiology,” May 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [30]

    Neurobench: Advancing neuromorphic computing through collaborative, fair and representative benchmarking,

    J. Yik et al., “Neurobench: Advancing neuromorphic computing through collaborative, fair and representative benchmarking,” 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [1]

    Closed-loop enhancement and neural decoding of cognitive control in humans,

    I. Basu et al. , “Closed-loop enhancement and neural decoding of cognitive control in humans,” Nature Biomedical Engineering , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 576–588, Nov. 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [2]

    Dynamic stimulation of visual cortex produces form vision in sighted and blind humans,

    M. S. Beauchamp et al., “Dynamic stimulation of visual cortex produces form vision in sighted and blind humans,” Cell, vol. 181, no. 4, pp. 774– 783.e5, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [3]

    A high-performance speech neuroprosthesis,

    F. R. Willett et al. , “A high-performance speech neuroprosthesis,” Nature, vol. 620, no. 7976, pp. 1031–1036, Aug 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [4]

    Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia,

    L. R. Hochberg et al., “Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia,” Nature, vol. 442, no. 7099, pp. 164–171, Jul 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 33 references
  1. [5]

    Algorithm and hardware considerations for real-time neural signal on-implant processing,

    N. Even-Chen, D. G. Muratore, S. D. Stavisky, L. R. Hochberg, J. M. Henderson, B. Murmann, and K. V . Shenoy, “Algorithm and hardware considerations for real-time neural signal on-implant processing,” Nature Biomedical Engineering, vol. 4, pp. 984–996, Aug 2020

    2020

  2. [6]

    A neuromorphic event-based neural record- ing system for smart brain-machine-interfaces,

    F. Corradi and G. Indiveri, “A neuromorphic event-based neural record- ing system for smart brain-machine-interfaces,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems , vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 699–709, 2015

    2015

  3. [7]

    An implantable neuromorphic sensing system featuring near-sensor computation and send-on-delta transmission for wireless neural sensing of peripheral nerves,

    Y . He et al. , “An implantable neuromorphic sensing system featuring near-sensor computation and send-on-delta transmission for wireless neural sensing of peripheral nerves,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Cir- cuits, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 3058–3070, 2022

    2022

  4. [10]

    An event-based neural compressive telemetry with 11× loss-less data reduction for high-bandwidth intracortical brain computer interfaces,

    Y . He et al. , “An event-based neural compressive telemetry with 11× loss-less data reduction for high-bandwidth intracortical brain computer interfaces,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems , vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1100–1111, 2024

    2024

  5. [11]

    A 4096 channel event-based multielectrode array with asynchronous outputs compatible with neuromorphic processors,

    M. Cartiglia et al. , “A 4096 channel event-based multielectrode array with asynchronous outputs compatible with neuromorphic processors,” Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 7163, Aug 2024

    2024

  6. [12]

    High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia,

    J. L. Collinger et al., “High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia,” The Lancet , vol. 381, no. 9866, pp. 557– 564, Feb 2013

    2013

  7. [13]

    Neural decoding of cursor motion using a Kalman filter,

    W. Wu, M. Black, Y . Gao, M. Serruya, A. Shaikhouni, J. Donoghue, and E. Bienenstock, “Neural decoding of cursor motion using a Kalman filter,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 15, 2002

    2002

  8. [14]

    A high-performance neural prosthesis enabled by control algorithm design,

    V . Gilja et al., “A high-performance neural prosthesis enabled by control algorithm design,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 15, pp. 1752–1757, 2012

    2012

  9. [15]

    Spiking neural network decoder for brain-machine interfaces,

    J. Dethier, V . Gilja, P. Nuyujukian, S. A. Elassaad, K. V . Shenoy, and K. Boahen, “Spiking neural network decoder for brain-machine interfaces,” in 2011 5th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering, 2011, pp. 396–399

    2011

  10. [16]

    Independent mobility achieved through a wireless brain-machine interface,

    C. Libedinsky et al., “Independent mobility achieved through a wireless brain-machine interface,” PLOS ONE, vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 1–13, 11 2016

    2016

  11. [17]

    Deep multi- state dynamic recurrent neural networks operating on wavelet based neural features for robust brain machine interfaces,

    B. Allahgholizadeh Haghi, S. Kellis, S. Shah, M. Ashok, L. Bashford, D. Kramer, B. Lee, C. Liu, R. Andersen, and A. Emami, “Deep multi- state dynamic recurrent neural networks operating on wavelet based neural features for robust brain machine interfaces,” in Advances in Neura...

    2019

  12. [18]

    High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting,

    F. R. Willett, D. T. Avansino, L. R. Hochberg, J. M. Henderson, and K. V . Shenoy, “High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting,” Nature, vol. 593, no. 7858, pp. 249–254, May 2021

    2021

  13. [19]

    Robust and accurate decoding of hand kinematics from entire spiking activity using deep learning,

    N. Ahmadi, T. G. Constandinou, and C.-S. Bouganis, “Robust and accurate decoding of hand kinematics from entire spiking activity using deep learning,” Journal of Neural Engineering, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 026011, Feb 2021

    2021

  14. [20]

    Towards autonomous intra-cortical brain machine interfaces: Applying bandit al- gorithms for online reinforcement learning,

    S. Shaikh, R. So, T. Sibindi, C. Libedinsky, and A. Basu, “Towards autonomous intra-cortical brain machine interfaces: Applying bandit al- gorithms for online reinforcement learning,” in 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) , 2020, pp. 1–5

    2020

  15. [21]

    Real-time brain-machine interface in non-human primates achieves high-velocity prosthetic finger movements using a shallow feedforward neural network decoder,

    M. S. Willsey et al., “Real-time brain-machine interface in non-human primates achieves high-velocity prosthetic finger movements using a shallow feedforward neural network decoder,” Nature Communications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 6899, Nov 2022

    2022

  16. [22]

    An energy-efficient spiking neural network for finger velocity decoding for implantable brain-machine interface,

    J. Liao et al. , “An energy-efficient spiking neural network for finger velocity decoding for implantable brain-machine interface,” in 2022 IEEE 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Circuits and Systems (AICAS) , 2022, pp. 134–137

    2022

  17. [23]

    A scalable multicore architecture with heterogeneous memory structures for dynamic neuro- morphic asynchronous processors (DYNAPs),

    S. Moradi, N. Qiao, F. Stefanini, and G. Indiveri, “A scalable multicore architecture with heterogeneous memory structures for dynamic neuro- morphic asynchronous processors (DYNAPs),” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems , vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 106–122, 2018

    2018

  18. [24]

    Hybrid event-frame neural spike de- tector for neuromorphic implantable BMI,

    V . Mohan, W. P. Tay, and A. Basu, “Hybrid event-frame neural spike de- tector for neuromorphic implantable BMI,” in 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) , 2024, pp. 1–5

    2024

  19. [25]

    A 128× 128 120 db 15 µs latency asynchronous temporal contrast vision sensor,

    P. Lichsteiner, C. Posch, and T. Delbruck, “A 128× 128 120 db 15 µs latency asynchronous temporal contrast vision sensor,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 566–76, 2008

    2008

  20. [26]

    A 128-channel extreme learning machine-based neural decoder for brain machine interfaces,

    Y . Chen, E. Yao, and A. Basu, “A 128-channel extreme learning machine-based neural decoder for brain machine interfaces,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems , vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 679–692, 2016

    2016

  21. [27]

    Towards intelligent intracortical BMI (i2BMI) low-power neuromorphic decoders that outperform Kalman filters,

    S. Shaikh, R. So, T. Sibindi, C. Libedinsky, and A. Basu, “Towards intelligent intracortical BMI (i2BMI) low-power neuromorphic decoders that outperform Kalman filters,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems , vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1615–1624, 2019

    2019

  22. [28]

    ANN vs SNN: A case study for neural decoding in implantable brain-machine interfaces,

    B. Zhou, P.-S. V . Sun, and A. Basu, “ANN vs SNN: A case study for neural decoding in implantable brain-machine interfaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.15889, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Real-time closed loop neural decoding on a neuromorphic chip,

    S. Shaikh, R. So, T. Sibindi, C. Libedinsky, and A. Basu, “Real-time closed loop neural decoding on a neuromorphic chip,” in 2019 9th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER) , 2019, pp. 670–673

    2019

  24. [32]

    Training spiking neural networks using lessons from deep learning,

    J. K. Eshraghian et al., “Training spiking neural networks using lessons from deep learning,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 111, no. 9, pp. 1016– 1054, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Loihi: A neuromorphic manycore processor with on- chip learning,

    M. Davies et al., “Loihi: A neuromorphic manycore processor with on- chip learning,” IEEE Micro, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 82–99, January 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.