Abstract
The brain coordinates multiple parallel motor programs, ensuring synergy and preventing interference during movements. Yet, performance often degrades when brain–machine interfaces are used during concurrent tasks or ongoing movements. We suggest that latent neural representations may represent a strategy to solve this issue. In this study, we addressed this question using neural signals from a tetraplegic individual with partial residual motor function, implanted with a wireless epidural electrocorticography (ECoG) device. By adapting dimensionality reduction techniques, we found that motor execution and motor imagery span partially overlapping subspaces in mesoscale neural signals, shaped by specific frequency band contributions. Despite substantial shared variance, we show that identifying orthogonal, condition-specific dimensions enables successful decoding of executed and imagined movements, even when performed simultaneously. These findings show that ECoG signals can expose separable neural subspaces, allowing executed and imagined actions to be harnessed independently and in concert. This opens a promising avenue to develop brain–machine interfaces that can simultaneously control multiple external devices or operate alongside natural movements.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary files. Any additional requests for information can be directed to and will be fulfilled by the corresponding author. Source data are provided with this paper. The neural data (only bandpass filtered in [1,250] Hz as well as fully preprocessed) have been deposited in the Zenodo public database: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18703800. Source data are provided with this paper.
Code availability
The code supporting the analyses presented in this study is available in the public Zenodo database: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18317718.
References
Miller, K. J. et al. Cortical activity during motor execution, motor imagery, and imagery-based online feedback. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 4430–4435 (2010).
Cunnington, R., Iansek, R., Bradshaw, J. L. & Phillips, J. G. Movement-related potentials associated with movement preparation and motor imagery. Exp. Brain Res. 111, 429–436 (1996).
Carrillo-de-la Peña, M. T., Galdo-Álvarez, S. & Lastra-Barreira, C. Equivalent is not equal: Primary motor cortex (MI) activation during motor imagery and execution of sequential movements. Brain Res. 1226, 134–143 (2008).
Lotze, M. & Halsband, U. Motor imagery. J. Physiol. Paris 99, 386–395 (2006).
Solomon, J. P., Kraeutner, S. N., Bardouille, T. & Boe, S. G. Probing the temporal dynamics of movement inhibition in motor imagery. Brain Res. 1720, 146310 (2019).
Yuste, R. From the neuron doctrine to neural networks. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 16, 487–497 (2015).
Gallego, J. A., Perich, M. G., Miller, L. E. & Solla, S. A. Neural manifolds for the control of movement. Neuron 94, 978–984 (2017).
Gallego, J. A. et al. Cortical population activity within a preserved neural manifold underlies multiple motor behaviors. Nat. Commun. 9, 4233. issn: 2041-1723. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06560-z (2018).
Kaufman, M. T., Churchland, M. M., Ryu, S. I. & Shenoy, K. V. Cortical activity in the null space: permitting preparation without movement. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 440–448 (2014).
Jiang, X., Saggar, H., Ryu, S. I., Shenoy, K. V. & Kao, J. C. Structure in neural activity during observed and executed movements is shared at the neural population level, not in single neurons. Cell Rep. 32. issn: 2211-1247. https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/abstract/S2211-1247(20)30991-8 (2020).
Elsayed, G. F., Lara, A. H., Kaufman, M. T., Churchland, M. M. & Cunningham, J. P. Reorganization between preparatory and movement population responses in motor cortex. Nat. Commun. 7, 13239 (2016).
Churchland, M. M. et al. Neural population dynamics during reaching. Nature 487, 51–56 (2012).
Churchland, M. M. & Shenoy, K. V. Preparatory activity and the expansive null-space. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 25, 213–236 (2024).
Dekleva, B. M. et al. Motor cortex retains and reorients neural dynamics during motor imagery. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8, 729–742 (2024).
Herff, C. et al. Brain-to-text: decoding spoken phrases from phone representations in the brain. Front. Neurosci. 8, 1662-453X. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00217/full (2015).
Metzger, S. L. et al. A high-performance neuroprosthesis for speech decoding and avatar control. Nature 620, 1037–1046. issn: 1476-4687. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06443-4 (2023).
Moses, D. A. et al. Neuroprosthesis for decoding speech in a paralyzed person with anarthria. N. Engl. J. Med. 385, 217–227 (2021).
Konrad, P. E. et al. First-in-human experience performing high-resolution cortical mapping using a novel microelectrode array containing 1,024 electrodes. J. Neural Eng. issn: 1741-2552. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/adaeed (2025).
Larzabal, C. et al. Long-term stability of the chronic epidural wireless recorder WIMAGINE in tetraplegic patients. J. Neural Eng. 18, 056026 (2021).
Moly, A. et al. An adaptive closed-loop ECoG decoder for long-term and stable bimanual control of an exoskeleton by a tetraplegic. J. Neural Eng. 19, 026021 (2022).
Vansteensel, M. J. et al. Longevity of a brain–computer interface for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. New Eng. J. Med. 391. eprint: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2619-626. issn: 0028-4793. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2314598 (2024).
Natraj, N. et al. Sampling representational plasticity of simple imagined movements across days enables long-term neuroprosthetic control. Cell 188, 1208–1225.e32 (2025).
Bashford, L. et al. Neural subspaces of imagined movements in parietal cortex remain stable over several years in humans. J. Neural Eng. 21, 046059 (2024).
Degenhart, A. D. et al. Stabilization of a brain–computer interface via the alignment of low-dimensional spaces of neural activity. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 4, 672–685 (2020).
Losanno, E. et al. An Investigation of Manifold-Based Direct Control for a Brain-to-Body Neural Bypass. IEEE Open Journal of Engineering in Medicine and Biology 5. Conference Name: IEEE Open Journal of Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 271–280. issn: 2644-1276. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10478790 (2024).
Melbaum, S. et al. Conserved structures of neural activity in sensorimotor cortex of freely moving rats allow cross-subject decoding. Nat. Commun. 13, 7420. issn: 2041-1723. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35115-6 (2022).
Safaie, M. et al. Preserved neural dynamics across animals performing similar behaviour. Nature 623, 765–771 (2023).
Bashford, L. et al. Concurrent control of a brain-computer interface and natural overt movements. J. Neural Eng. 15, 066021 (2018).
Dominijanni, G. et al. The neural resource allocation problem when enhancing human bodies with extra robotic limbs. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 850–860 (2021).
Mestais, C. S. et al. WIMAGINE: Wireless 64-Channel ECoG Recording Implant for Long Term Clinical Applications. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 23. Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 10–21. issn: 1558-0210. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6846362/?arnumber=6846362 (2015).
Hartigan, J. A. & Hartigan, P. M. The dip test of unimodality. Ann. Stat. 13, 70–84 (1985).
Elsayed, G. F. & Cunningham, J. P. Structure in neural population recordings: an expected byproduct of simpler phenomena? Nat. Neurosci. 20, 1310–1318. issn: 1097-6256. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5577566/ (2017).
Kaufman, M. T. et al. The largest response component in the motor cortex reflects movement timing but not movement type. eNeuro 3. issn: 2373-2822. https://www.eneuro.org/content/3/4/ENEURO.0085-16.2016 (2016).
Natraj, N., Silversmith, D. B., Chang, E. F. & Ganguly, K. Compartmentalized dynamics within a common multi-area mesoscale manifold represent a repertoire of human hand movements. Neuron 110, 154–174.e12 (2022).
Gallego-Carracedo, C., Perich, M. G., Chowdhury, R. H., Miller, L. E. & Gallego, J. Local field potentials reflect cortical population dynamics in a region-specific and frequency-dependent manner. eLife 11, e73155 (2022).
Hall, T. M., de Carvalho, F. & Jackson, A. A common structure underlies low-frequency cortical dynamics in movement, sleep, and sedation. Neuron 83, 1185–1199 (2014).
Abbaspourazad, H., Choudhury, M., Wong, Y. T., Pesaran, B. & Shanechi, M. M. Multiscale low-dimensional motor cortical state dynamics predict naturalistic reach-and-grasp behavior. Nat. Commun. 12, 607 (2021).
Ray, S., Crone, N. E., Niebur, E., Franaszczuk, P. J. & Hsiao, S. S. Neural correlates of high-gamma oscillations (60–200 Hz) in Macaque local field potentials and their potential implications in electrocorticography. J. Neurosci. 28, 11526–11536 (2008).
Buzsáki, G., Anastassiou, C. A. & Koch, C. The origin of extracellular fields and currents—EEG, ECoG, LFP and spikes. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 13, 407–420 (2012).
Fahimi Hnazaee, M. et al. Towards predicting ECoG-BCI performance: assessing the potential of scalp-EEG. J. Neural Eng. 19, 046045 (2022).
Pistohl, T., Schulze-Bonhage, A., Aertsen, A., Mehring, C. & Ball, T. Decoding natural grasp types from human ECoG. NeuroImage. Neuroergonomics Hum. Brain Action Work 59, 248–260 (2012).
Jafari, M. et al. The human primary somatosensory cortex encodes imagined movement in the absence of sensory information. Commun. Biol. 3, 1–7 (2020).
Dabagia, M., Kording, K. P. & Dyer, E. L. Aligning latent representations of neural activity. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 7, 337–343. issn: 2157-846X. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41551-022-00962-7 (2023).
Ottenhoff, M. C. et al. Global motor dynamics - Invariant neural representations of motor behavior in distributed brain-wide recordings. J. Neural Eng. 21, 1741-2552 (2024).
Shao, X. et al. Directional hand movement can be classified from insular cortex SEEG signals using recurrent neural networks and high-gamma band features. Sci. Rep. 15, 29993 (2025).
Ganguly, K., Dimitrov, D. F., Wallis, J. D. & Carmena, J. M. Reversible large-scale modification of cortical networks during neuroprosthetic control. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 662–667 (2011).
Ganguly, K. & Carmena, J. M. Emergence of a stable cortical map for neuroprosthetic control. PLOS Biol. 7, e1000153 (2009).
Hwang, H.-J., Kwon, K. & Im, C.-H. Neurofeedback-based motor imagery training for brain–computer interface (BCI). J. Neurosci. Methods 179, 150–156 (2009).
Zapała, D. et al. The impact of different visual feedbacks in user training on motor imagery control in BCI. Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback 43, 23–35 (2018).
Tian, K., Zhao, S., Zhang, Y. & Yu, S. Multi-dimensional Neural Decoding with Orthogonal Representations for Brain-Computer Interfaces arXiv:2508.08681 [q-bio]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.08681 (2025).
Kunz, E. M. et al. Inner speech in motor cortex and implications for speech neuroprostheses. Cell 188, 4658–4673.e17 (2025).
Schippers, A. et al. Don’t put words in my mouth: speech perception can falsely activate a brain-computer interface. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 22, 181 (2025).
Benabid, A. L. et al. An exoskeleton controlled by an epidural wireless brain-machine interface in a tetraplegic patient: a proof-of-concept demonstration. Lancet Neurol. 18, 1112–1122 (2019).
Kirshblum, S. C. et al. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (revised 2011). J. Spinal Cord. Med. 34, 535–546 (2011).
Fischl, B. FreeSurfer. NeuroImage. 20 YEARS OF fMRI 62, 774–781. issn: 1053-8119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811912000389 (2012).
Tadel, F., Baillet, S., Mosher, J. C., Pantazis, D. & Leahy, R. M. Brainstorm: a user-friendly application for MEG/EEG analysis. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2011, eprint: 879716 (2011).
Cignoni, P. et al. MeshLab: an Open-Source Mesh Processing Tool. in. 1, 129–136. (2008)
Townsend, J., Koep, N. & Weichwald, S. Pymanopt: a Python toolbox for optimization on manifolds using automatic differentiation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 17, 1–5 (2016).
Björck Golub, G. H. Numerical methods for computing angles between linear subspaces. Math. Comput. 27, 579–594 (1973).
Acknowledgements
The authors sincerely thank the participant for his invaluable time, dedication, and commitment throughout the data collection process. We also extend our gratitude to the multidisciplinary technical and clinical teams at Clinatec (CEA-LETI and CHU-Grenoble Alpes) for their involvement in the BCI &Tetraplegia clinical trial (NCT02550522), which enabled the advancements presented in this work. Finally, we thank Vincent Auboiroux for his assistance in providing medical reconstruction images of the implant location. S.M. and E.R. were supported by the #NEXTGENERATIONEU (NGEU) and funded by the Ministry of University and Research (MUR), National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), project: MNESYS (PE0000006)—A Multiscale integrated approach to the study of the nervous system in health and disease (DN. 1553 11.10.2022). S.M. also received support from two additional NRRP projects: THE (IECS00000017)—Tuscany Health Ecosystem (DN. 1553 11.10.2022), and BRIEF (IR0000036) –Biorobotics Research and Innovation Engineering Facilities (DN. 103 17.06.2022). L.P., V.d.S., S.M., and S.S. were supported by the Bertarelli Foundation and the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant Number 10003473). L.S., S.K., S.C., T.A., and G.C. were supported by the CEA (Recurrent Funding), the Carnot Institute CEA-Leti, the French Ministry of Health and Research (PHRC 15-124), and the Fonds de dotation Clinatec (and its sponsors Malakoff Humanis, Covéa and Klésia).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
L.P., S.S., and S.M. conceptualized the study. L.P., S.S., S.M., L.S., S.K., T.A., S.C., and G.C. designed the task, implemented, and supervised the experimental setup. L.P., L.S., and V.d.S. collected the data. L.P., L.S., V.d.S., and E.R. analyzed the data. All authors participated in the interpretation of the results. L.P., S.S., and S.M. wrote the manuscript with input from all authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Communications thanks the anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Pollina, L., Struber, L., de Seta, V. et al. Decoupling simultaneous motor imagination and execution via orthogonal ECoG neural representations. Nat Commun (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-71234-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-71234-0
