arXiv:2601. 07556v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Electroencephalogram (EEG)-based brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) face significant deployment challenges due to inter-subject variability, signal non-stationarity, and computational constraints.
arXiv:2604. 16926v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Electroencephalography (EEG) foundation models have shown strong potential for learning generalizable representations from large-scale neural data, yet their clinical deployment is hindered by distribution shifts across clinical settings, devices, and populations.
arXiv:2609.36609v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Electroencephalography (EEG) analysis requires careful choices in preprocessing, statistical modeling, and machine learning because EEG signals are h...
arXiv:2609.22088v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) decode neural activity into commands, yet most existing systems rely on fixed-window decoding that may result in red...
arXiv:2609.20904v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hybrid motor-imagery brain-computer interfaces (MI-BCIs) combining EEG and fNIRS can outperform EEG-only systems by exploiting complementary electrop...
arXiv:2608. 13072v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Electroencephalography (EEG) decoding models often generalize poorly across datasets and subjects due to domain shifts in acquisition protocols and individual neurophysiology.
arXiv:2608. 00048v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Electroencephalography (EEG) generation is essential for alleviating data scarcity and enabling large scale neural modeling in brain computer interface applications.
EEG foundation models pretrained via self-supervised learning promise transferable representations, but their generalization remains limited, especially across diverse clinical datasets. Full fine-tun...
arXiv:2608.24727v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: EEG foundation models pretrained via self-supervised learning promise transferable representations, but their generalization remains limited, especia...
The paper introduces a benchmark for out‑of‑distribution (OOD) detection in electroencephalography (EEG) machine learning, evaluates a wide range of OOD methods, and assesses their impact on two clinical downstream prediction tasks. It distinguishes between OOD detection and model uncertainty estimation, which are often conflated, and shows how combining complementary methods can create a robust safety net for deploying EEG‑based models in high‑risk settings.
Brain4FMs is a unified benchmark for evaluating brain foundation models (BFMs) on both scalp EEG and intracranial EEG (iEEG). It incorporates 17 representative models and 21 public datasets spanning clinical diagnosis, sleep staging, communication, and affective computing, and offers dataset-aware preprocessing, cross‑subject evaluation, and standardized downstream workflows. The benchmark highlights that no single BFM consistently outperforms others across all tasks, modalities, and adaptation protocols, prompting further exploratory analyses of model‑specific spatial, spectral, and discrete representations.
EEG-AS is an instance-level algorithm selection framework designed for EEG foundation models. It characterizes each EEG instance using latent embeddings, handcrafted neurophysiological features, and an anchor foundation model, then learns to reconstruct the behaviors of other foundation models from privileged prediction tokens. During inference, EEG-AS estimates these behaviors without running the full model portfolio, enabling efficient selection among seven EEG foundation models and significantly reducing the performance gap between the single best solver and the oracle upper bound across seven public EEG benchmarks.
NeuroAtlas is the largest EEG benchmark to date, comprising 42 datasets and 260,000 hours of clinical EEG data across epilepsy, sleep medicine, brain age estimation, and brain‑computer interfaces. The study evaluates foundation models (FMs) for EEG against supervised baselines and generic time‑series FMs, finding that EEG‑specific FMs do not consistently outperform generic ones. It also demonstrates that standard machine‑learning metrics are inadequate for clinical relevance, advocating for task‑specific measures such as event‑level decision quality, hypnogram features, and brain‑age gap.