New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Cracking the Brain’s Enigma Code

Neuroscientists are taking cues from cryptography to translate brain activity into movements

David MalinGetty Images

During World War II, cryptographers cracked Germany's Enigma code by exploiting known language patterns in the encrypted messages. Using the expected frequencies and distributions of certain letters and words helped British computer scientist Alan Turing and his colleagues find the key to translate gibberish into plain language. Now researchers are borrowing from the world of cryptography to convert brain signals into limb movements.

Many human motions, such as walking or reaching, follow predictable patterns. With this in mind, Eva Dyer, a neuroscientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, developed a cryptography-inspired strategy for neural decoding. She and her colleagues published their results last December in Nature Biomedical Engineering.

“I've heard of this approach before, but this is one of the first studies that's come out and been published,” says Nicholas Hatsopoulos, a neuroscientist at the University of Chicago, who was not involved in the work. “It's pretty novel.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Existing brain-computer interfaces, such as those that control some prosthetic limbs, typically use algorithms called supervised decoders. These rely on simultaneous recording of both neural activity and moment-by-moment movement details, including limb position and speed—a time-consuming, laborious process. This information is then used to train the decoder to translate neural patterns into their corresponding movements. In cryptography terms, this would be like comparing a number of already decrypted messages with their encrypted versions to reverse engineer the key.

In contrast, Dyer's team sought to predict movements using only the “encrypted messages” (neural activity) and a general understanding of the patterns that pop up in certain movements. The scientists trained three macaques to use arm or wrist movements to guide a cursor to a number of targets on a screen. At the same time, implanted electrodes recorded signals from about 100 neurons in each monkey's motor cortex—a brain region that controls movement. The researchers then tested a slew of computational models to find the one that best mapped patterns buried in the neural activity onto patterns they had seen in the animals' movements.

When the researchers used their best model to decode neural activity from individual trials, they could predict the macaques' actual movements on those trials about as well as some basic supervised decoders. “It's a very cool result,” says Jonathan Kao, a computational neuroscientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study.

Dyer calls her work a proof of concept and notes that much more must be done before the technique can be used widely. “By comparison to state-of-the-art decoders, this is not yet a competitive method,” she says. “We've only kind of scratched the surface.”

Helen Shen is a science writer based in Sunnyvale, Calif. She has contributed to Nature, Science and the Boston Globe.

More by Helen Shen
SA Mind Vol 29 Issue 2This article was published with the title “Cracking the Brain's Enigma Code” in SA Mind Vol. 29 No. 2 (), p. 22
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0318-22

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe