As with most other data domains, EEG data analysis relies on rich domain-specific preprocessing. Beyond such preprocessing, machine learners would hope to deal with such data as with any other time series data. For EEG classification many models have been developed with layer types and architectures we typically do not see in time series classification. Furthermore, typically separate models for each individual subject are learned, not one model for all of them. In this paper, we systematically study the differences between EEG classification models and generic time series classification models. We describe three different model setups to deal with EEG data from different subjects, subject-specific models (most EEG literature), subject-agnostic models and subject-conditional models. In experiments on three datasets, we demonstrate that off-the-shelf time series classification models trained per subject perform close to EEG classification models, but that do not quite reach the performance of domain-specific modeling. Additionally, we combine time-series models with subject embeddings to train one joint subject-conditional classifier on all subjects. The resulting models are competitive with dedicated EEG models in 2 out of 3 datasets, even outperforming all EEG methods on one of them.
Figures & tables
Data Usage
Model
Single
All
Transfer
Meta
Specialised Layer
Architecture
MAtt ( Pan et al., 2022 )
✓
−
−
−
Riemann space transformation
Attention
MBEEGSE ( Altuwaijri et al., 2022 )
✓
−
−
−
EEGNetBlock
CNN
EEG-TCNet ( Ingolfsson et al., 2020 )
✓
−
−
−
TCN-Blocks
CNN
TCNet-Fusion ( Musallam et al., 2021 )
✓
−
−
−
notch filter
CNN
FBCNet ( Mane et al., 2021 )
✓
−
−
−
spectral filtering
CNN
Table 1: Comparison of the EEG Classification literature.
Figure 1: In the figure above, we demonstrate the three proposed methods of using the subject information, where (a) is Constant Indicator Channels, (b) the Constant Embedding Channels, and (c) Separate Embedding. Here ⊕ denotes the concatenation of two tensors across the channel dimension, and for (b) d represents the embedding size. We have set the subject Id to 2 as an example.
Dataset
Subjects
Instances
Channels
Timesteps
Classes
Task
Mi
9
7.452
22
438
4
Motor Imagery
SSVEP
11
5.500
8
128
5
Visual Stimulus
ERN
16
5.440
56
160
2
Error recognition
Table 2: Summary for the three datasets with the number of subjects, instances, channels, timesteps and classes.
Models
MI
SSVEP
ERN
ShallowConvNet
61.84 ± 6.39
56.93 ± 6.97
71.86 ± 2.64
EEGNet
57.43 ± 6.25
53.72 ± 7.23
74.28 ± 2.47
SCCNet
71.95 ± 5.05
62.11 ± 7.70
70.93 ± 2.31
EEG-TCNet
67.09 ± 4.66
55.45 ± 7.66
77.05 ± 2.46
TCNet-Fusion
56.52 ± 3.07
45.00 ± 6.45
70.46 ± 2.94
FBCNet
71.45 ± 4.45
53.09 ± 5.67
60.47 ± 3.06
Table 3: Performance comparison for the datasets BCIC-IV-2a (MI), MAMEM EEG SSVEP Dataset II (SSVEP) and the BCI challenge error-related negativity (ERN). We report the average accuracy for MI and SSVEP and the AUC for ERN over 5 runs, respectively. The first block contains the common baselines for the EEG literature, where MAtt † are the results reported in the original paper and MAtt is our reproduction. The second block is composed of the proposed TSC models, ResNet and Inception, for the subject-specific approach. The last block consists of the subject-conditional approach where all subjects are trained jointly, and we utilize the subject information. The best result is highlighted in bold and the second best is underlined.
Subject
Inception
ResNet
MAtt
1
78.96±1.82
72.83±3.22
86.94±1.36
2
41.25±2.63
38.12±3.27
56.94±2.42
3
82.09±3.05
70.76±3.10
88.33±1.17
4
52.43±2.40
49.72±3.41
67.85±3.42
5
38.75±3.74
37.50±4.51
61.32±1.07
6
48.61±1.78
44.58±4.39
52.50±2.52
Table 4: Performance Comparison on the MI dataset for the subject-specific case. We report the average accuracy over 5 runs.
Subject
Inception
ResNet
MAtt
1
80.40±2.06
56.40±3.98
81.60±2.87
2
86.60±1.62
75.20±3.82
89.40±1.36
3
61.60±3.07
38.20±2.64
58.20±5.64
4
25.00±4.00
20.40±4.41
20.60±3.88
5
25.00±6.72
22.60±1.74
26.40±4.80
6
79.20±1.72
38.20±3.92
79.00±2.68
Table 5: Performance Comparison on the SSVEP dataset for the subject-specific case. We report the average accuracy over 5 runs.
Subject
Inception
ResNet
MAtt
2
81.14±4.60
74.03±3.37
81.86±2.56
6
90.89±2.02
88.40±2.67
68.34±1.76
7
83.45±6.80
85.45±7.05
69.28±10.90
11
59.50±10.52
55.27±9.19
70.50±2.66
12
74.49±3.67
68.62±9.92
60.62±4.70
13
56.34±2.26
51.15±4.16
62.92±3.65
Table 6: Performance Comparison on the ERN dataset for the subject-specific case. We report the average AUC over 5 runs.
Method
MI
SSVEP
ERN
ResNet
SA
55.42 ± 2.72
50.48 ± 0.48
69.76 ± 0.72
CIC
55.54 ± 1.72
50.39 ± 0.24
73.09 ± 0.66
CEC
55.21 ± 2.52
54.15 ± 1.19
73.06 ± 2.21
SE
49.08 ± 2.07
49.88 ± 0.75
68.77 ± 1.43
Inception
Table 7: Performance comparison with subject information for the joint training protocol for the Constant Indicator Channels (CIC), Constant Embedding Channels (CEC), and Separate Embedding (SE). (SA) is the subject-agnostic approach with no additional subject information. We report the average accuracy for MI and SSVEP and the AUC for ERN over 5 runs, respectively. The best result per dataset is marked in bold and the best method per model underlined.
Electroencephalogram (EEG) classification plays a key role in medical diagnosis and brain-computer interfaces, but remains challenging due to low signal-to-noise ratios and high inter-subject variability. As a result, many existing approaches rely on subject-specific models, which fail to exploit shared structure in neural signals and do not generalize to unseen subjects. To address these limitations, we propose LAtte, a framework that combines Lorentz attention with a hyperbolic InceptionTime-based encoder to improve cross-subject generalization in EEG classification. The model explicitly decomposes EEG signals into a learned baseline component and task-relevant deviations, enabling more structured representation learning. To further improve robustness and adaptability, we incorporate subject-specific low-rank adaptation (LoRA) modules at both encoder and decoder levels, augmented with a Lorentz boost-based LoRA mechanism and hyperbolic projection layers to reduce overfitting in geometric representations. We evaluate LAtte with and without finetuning in three settings: subject-specific, subject-conditional, and leave-one-subject-out (LOSO) on five established EEG datasets, achieving a consistent improvement in performance over current state-of-the-art methods for smaller datasets and maintaining performance for larger datasets.
Ahmad Bdeir, Johannes Burchert, Tom Hanika +2
Data Science Group, Universität Hildesheim · ISMLL, Universität Hildesheim
EEG foundation models (EFMs) have improved EEG representation learning by transferring knowledge from large-scale multi-subject pretraining to downstream tasks. However, their pretrained embeddings often retain substantial subject-related variation, placing an additional burden on the downstream classifier, especially in cross-subject settings. To address this issue, we propose Disentangled EFM Fine-Tuning (DEFT), a plug-and-play adapter for EFM fine-tuning. DEFT encourages branch disentanglement of pretrained tokens into task-oriented content and subject-consistent style, then performs downstream prediction from the content branch. It instantiates this factorize-before-classify design with recursive Gaussian refinement, temporal-variance regularization, subject-aware contrastive learning, and reconstruction. Experiments across multiple EEG datasets and four EFM backbones show that DEFT improves matched fine-tuning baselines. Further ablations and analyses support the intended content/style branch organization.
Yuqiu Deng, Muyun Jiang, Zongpeng Zhang +8
Uploading Inc · College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University · Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University +2
Medical time series (MedTS) signals such as electroencephalography (EEG) and electrocardiography (ECG) support many clinical applications. However, substantial subject-level heterogeneity often induces subject-level distribution shift, causing a fixed parameter set to generalize poorly to unseen individuals. Compared with domain adaptation methods that often depend on extra adaptation components or target-batch statistics, Test-Time Training (TTT) provides a more practical solution for sequential clinical data by enabling online adaptation from unlabeled test samples. However, many representative TTT methods require iterative inner-loop optimization, increasing test-time overhead. In this paper, we propose MedTS-TTT, a test-time training framework for medical time series modeling. MedTS-TTT is built upon Closed-Loop Self-Alignment Test-Time Training (CLSA-TTT) and a Gated Convolutional Backbone (GCB). CLSA-TTT constructs a token-level self-supervised target and performs a single-step fast-weight update for intra-layer closed-loop alignment, enabling rapid sample-wise adaptation without iterative inner-loop optimization. GCB combines CLSA-TTT-based fast adaptation and token-level fusion with a gated convolutional branch to balance local dynamic modeling and information-flow control. On 4 public datasets (2 EEG and 2 ECG) with subject-independent splits, MedTS-TTT achieves 11 top-1 rankings out of 12 evaluations across 9 baselines and 3 metrics. The code is publicly available at https://github.com/mingzhi-c/MedTS-TTT.
Mingzhi Chen, Yiyu Gui, Guibo Luo
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Ultra High Definition Immersive Media Technology, Shenzhen Graduate School, Peking University, Shenzhen, China