Organizations: Nanyang Technological University · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International · Southeast University
EEG foundation models are pretrained on heterogeneous corpora, but two challenges remain underexplored: (1) experimental protocols provide mental-process cues that are rarely used in masked pretraining, and (2) electrode montages vary across datasets, making spatial representations montage-dependent. Existing methods typically learn a single general-purpose representation and model spatial structure implicitly, limiting their ability to exploit process-related information under montage heterogeneity. We introduce BrainPro, a process-conditioned self-supervised pretraining framework that couples topographic retrieval with shared and process-associated representation learning. BrainPro maps dataset-specific montages to a universal channel-region template and retrieves channel- and region-level spatial filters to form a topographically aligned spatial basis. Over this basis, BrainPro learns a shared encoder for general EEG structure and additional affective, motor-related, and auxiliary residual branches for process-associated variation. Protocol-derived mental-process cues condition branch activation and region-weighted masked reconstruction, incorporating topographic spatial priors and process information. Across nine public BCI benchmarks, BrainPro achieves strong performance among evaluated baselines. Ablations, channel-drop analysis, encoder-configuration studies, and spatial-filter visualizations suggest that topographic retrieval and process-conditioned representation learning jointly improve EEG decoding. Our code is available at https://github.com/yi-ding-cs/BrainPro.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: BrainPro framework. BrainPro consists of a shared encoder ES , affective and motor process-associated encoders ( EA and EM ), and an auxiliary residual encoder EO for heterogeneous non-affect/non-motor data. Pretraining combines process-guided region-weighted reconstruction and representation-level branch separation to learn shared and process-associated representations over a topographically aligned spatial basis.
Figure 2: EEG encoder of BrainPro. Each encoder consists of three stages: (1) a temporal learning encoder based on temporal CNNs; (2) a topographic retrieval encoder that performs channel- and region-based spatial retrieval; and (3) patchification and token embedding, followed by Transformer encoders for spatiotemporal modeling
Methods
FACED (9-Class)
SEED-V (5-Class)
BCI-IV-2a (4-Class)
ACC-B
Kappa
F1-W
ACC-B
Kappa
F1-W
ACC-B
Kappa
F1-W
EEGNet
0.3692 ±0.0103
0.2880 ±0.0113
0.3693 ±0.0111
0.2408 ±0.0031
0.0536 ±0.0042
0.1908 ±0.0088
0.5521 ±0.0183
0.4028 ±0.0244
0.5346 ±0.0228
Conformer
0.4566 ±0.0108
0.3849 ±0.0121
0.4555 ±0.0098
0.3087 ±0.0095
0.1294 ±0.0134
0.2837 ±0.0229
0.4879 ±0.0183
0.3171 ±0.0244
0.4561 ±0.0206
BIOT
0.2992 ±0.0119
0.2105 ±0.0147
0.2954 ±0.0149
0.3575 ±0.0052
0.1971 ±0.0081
0.3636 ±0.0078
0.2392 ±0.0280
-0.0144 ±0.0373
0.1063 ±0.0060
EEGPT
0.2809 ±0.0116
0.1912 ±0.0129
0.2810 ±0.0120
0.2421 ±0.0048
0.0557 ±0.0077
0.2438 ±0.0055
0.3849 ±0.0226
0.1799 ±0.0301
0.3272 ±0.0336
LaBraM
0.5224 ±0.0116
0.4610 ±0.0126
0.5259 ±0.0108
0.3986 ±0.0200
0.2491 ±0.0256
0.4040 ±0.0197
0.5255 ±0.0329
0.3674 ±0.0439
0.5095 ±0.0405
Table 1: Comparison results of different methods on downstream tasks.
Figure 3: Visualization of the learned spatial filters for the Affect, Motor, and Shared encoders after pretraining. Each subplot shows a 2D scalp topography in which warmer colors indicate larger filter weights and cooler colors indicate smaller weights, reflecting the relative contribution of each scalp region to the encoder’s representation. Emotion- and motor-related regions are outlined.
Methods
FACED (9-Class)
BCI-IV-2A (4-Class)
ACC-B
Kappa
F1-W
ACC-B
Kappa
F1-W
w/o reconstruction
0.5391 ± 0.0151
0.3854 ± 0.0202
0.5401 ± 0.0177
0.4354 ± 0.0329
0.2472 ± 0.0439
0.3758 ± 0.0548
w/o separation
0.5638 ± 0.0138
0.4184 ± 0.0185
0.5603 ± 0.0107
0.4870 ± 0.0184
0.3160 ± 0.0246
0.4725 ± 0.0219
w/ random retrieval
0.5747 ± 0.0098
0.4329 ± 0.0130
0.5674 ± 0.0068
0.5125 ± 0.0308
0.3500 ± 0.0410
0.5052 ± 0.0379
w/o spatial prior
0.5634 ± 0.0271
0.5060 ± 0.0319
0.5672 ± 0.0330
0.5496 ± 0.0143
0.3994 ± 0.0191
0.5495 ± 0.0141
w/ random process cue
0.5269 ± 0.0288
0.4682 ± 0.0341
0.5330 ± 0.0329
0.5232 ± 0.0065
0.3642 ± 0.0087
0.5104 ± 0.0127
Table 2: Ablation studies of the main components on affective and motor-related downstream tasks.
Figure 4: Performance of BrainPro, CBraMod, and LaBraM under different levels of channel-drop rate.
FACED (9-Class)
BCI-IV-2A (4-Class)
Method
ACC-B
Kappa
F1-W
ACC-B
Kappa
F1-W
S
0.5635 ± 0.0031
0.5088 ± 0.0050
0.5710 ± 0.0049
0.5527 ± 0.0218
0.4036 ± 0.0290
0.5504 ± 0.0236
S + A
0.5937 ± 0.0087
0.5418 ± 0.0092
0.6023 ± 0.0061
0.5499 ± 0.0044
0.3999 ± 0.0059
0.5469 ± 0.0060
S + M
0.5828 ± 0.0142
0.5296 ± 0.0143
0.5904 ± 0.0144
0.5674 ± 0.0148
0.4232 ± 0.0198
0.5653 ± 0.0169
S + O
0.5821 ± 0.0144
0.5292 ± 0.0150
0.5881 ± 0.0133
0.5525 ± 0.0173
0.4033 ± 0.0231
0.5491 ± 0.0192
S + A + M
0.5988 ± 0.0057
0.5477 ± 0.0058
0.6098 ± 0.0043
0.5797 ± 0.0229
0.4396 ± 0.0305
0.5764 ± 0.0245
Table 3: Effects of different encoder configurations on downstream performance.
Appendix figures & tables28 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
BCI Task
Dataset
fs
# Ch.
T
# Samples
Label
I.Emotion Recognition
FACED
250 Hz
32
10 s
10,332
9-class
SEED-V
1000 Hz
62
1 s
117,744
5-class
SEED-VII
1000 Hz
62
1 s
281,679
7-class
II.Motor Imagery
BCI-IV-2A
250 Hz
22
4 s
5,088
4-class
SHU-MI
250 Hz
32
4 s
11,988
2-class
III.Imagined Speech
BCIC2020-3
256 Hz
64
4 s
5,250
5-class
Appendix
Table 4: Overview of downstream BCI tasks and datasets.
Figure 5: The brain region definition used in spatial learning block.
Module
Input
Operation
Process cue
Purpose
Topographic mapping
Dataset montage
Map supported channels to the 60-channel template
×
Establish a common spatial basis
Channel and region retrieval
Temporal features and template indices
Retrieve spatial filters from each encoder using montage-defined indices
×
Associate spatial parameters with scalp locations
Branch routing
EEG segment and process label
Route gradients to the shared and assigned process encoders
✓
Learn shared and process-associated representations
Separation loss
Branch representations
Apply margin-based cosine regularization with detached inactive outputs
✓
Discourage excessive similarity between branches
Reconstruction
Shared and active branch outputs
Decode the unmasked EEG target in template space using the active decoder
✓
Provide a masked reconstruction objective
Region weighting
Reconstruction errors, process priors, and epoch
Apply epoch-dependent channel weights, with uniform weights for the auxiliary group
✓
Emphasize coarse process-relevant regions
Appendix
Table 5: Overview of the main modules in BrainPro.
Brain Process Category
Datasets
Affect
Emobrain, SEED, SEED-IV, SEED-GER, SEED-FRA, and SHJT EEG Data
Motor
Grasp and Lift EEG Challenge, EEG Motor Movement/Imagery, KU, and HGD
Others
Raw EEG Data, Resting State EEG Data, SPIS Resting State, TUEP, TUSZ, and TUSL
Appendix
Table 6: Categories of the pretraining datasets.
Type
Factor
Value
Temporal Encoder
Input channels
{1, 32, 32}
Output channels
{32, 32, 32}
Kernel size
{15, 3, 3}
Stride
{1, 1, 1}
Padding
{7, 1, 1}
Spatial Encoder
Channel-wise Filter Number
32
Appendix
Table 7: Hyperparameters for pretraining.
Dataset
Learning Rate
Hidden Factor
Dropout
Token Selection
FACED
5e-4
8
0.1
All
SEED-V
3e-4
1
0.1
All
SEED-VII
3e-4
8
0.1
All
SHU
1e-4
1
0.1
Aggr
BCI-IV-2A
1e-3
1
0.2
Aggr
Mumtaz2016
1e-4
2
0.1
Aggr
Appendix
Table 8: Tuned hyper-parameters for downstream tasks.
Hyper-parameters
Settings
Epochs
50 (Others) / 30 (ATTEN)
Batch size
64
Optimizer
AdamW
Adam β
(0.9, 0.999)
Adam ϵ
1e-8
Weight decay
5e-2 / 1e-1 (BCIC2020-3)
Appendix
Table 9: Fixed hyper-parameters for fine-tuning.
Methods
ACC-B
Kappa
F1-W
EEGNet
0.1892 ± 0.0056
0.0562 ± 0.0071
0.1472 ± 0.0123
Conformer
0.2719 ± 0.0032
0.1566 ± 0.0039
0.2712 ± 0.0033
BIOT
0.3005 ± 0.0054
0.1859 ± 0.0070
0.3055 ± 0.0069
EEGPT
0.2213 ± 0.0060
0.0954 ± 0.0071
0.2147 ± 0.0120
LaBraM
0.3346 ± 0.0122
0.2256 ± 0.0146
0.3391 ± 0.0121
CBraMod
0.3318 ± 0.0056
0.2236 ± 0.0065
0.3384 ± 0.0059
Appendix
Table 10: Results on the SEED-VII dataset.
Methods
ACC-B
AUC-PR
AUROC
EEGNet
0.9113 ± 0.0104
0.9632 ± 0.0045
0.9512 ± 0.0096
Conformer
0.8422 ± 0.0344
0.9442 ± 0.0502
0.9613 ± 0.0064
BIOT
0.8789 ± 0.0190
0.9744 ± 0.0083
0.9664 ± 0.0136
EEGPT
0.8475 ± 0.0933
0.9695 ± 0.0076
0.9669 ± 0.0069
LaBraM
0.8986 ± 0.0018
0.9791 ± 0.0041
0.9754 ± 0.0050
CBraMod
0.8909 ± 0.0037
0.9769 ± 0.0047
0.9726 ± 0.0062
Appendix
Table 11: Results on the Major Depressive Disorder dataset.
Methods
ACC-B
Kappa
F1-W
EEGNet
0.2755 ± 0.0183
0.0943 ± 0.0228
0.2737 ± 0.0180
Conformer
0.3339 ± 0.0104
0.1673 ± 0.0130
0.3269 ± 0.0153
BIOT
0.3016 ± 0.0206
0.1270 ± 0.0257
0.2999 ± 0.0217
EEGPT
0.2787 ± 0.0061
0.0983 ± 0.0076
0.2758 ± 0.0060
LaBraM
0.4880 ± 0.0161
0.3600 ± 0.0201
0.4871 ± 0.0165
CBraMod
0.5061 ± 0.0211
0.3827 ± 0.0263
0.5050 ± 0.0212
Appendix
Table 12: Results on the Speech dataset.
Drop
BrainPro
CBraMod
LaBraM
Mean ± std
Δ
Mean ± std
Δ
Mean ± std
Δ
ACC-B ↑
0%
0.5937±0.0087
0
0.5669±0.0094
0
0.5224±0.0116
0
10%
0.5747±0.0014
−0.0190
0.5218±0.0042
−0.0451
0.4972±0.0036
−0.0252
20%
0.5373±0.0015
−0.0564
0.4890±0.0054
−0.0779
0.4725±0.0086
−0.0499
30%
0.4995±0.0056
−0.0942
0.4473±0.0035
−0.1196
0.4230±0.0085
−0.0994
Appendix
Table 13: Robustness under random channel dropping on FACED. Values are mean ± std; Δ denotes the absolute score change relative to no channel dropping. Bold indicates the highest mean in each row.
Method
FACED (9-Class)
SHU-MI (2-Class)
ACC-B
Kappa
F1-W
ACC-B
AUC-PR
AUROC
BIOT (Fixed)
0.2775 ± 0.0318
0.1839 ± 0.0512
0.2599 ± 0.0271
0.5123 ± 0.0206
0.5215 ± 0.0197
0.5146 ± 0.0264
LaBraM (Fixed)
0.3004 ± 0.0458
0.2377 ± 0.0617
0.2943 ± 0.0375
0.5233 ± 0.0272
0.5329 ± 0.0284
0.5218 ± 0.0275
CBraMod (Fixed)
0.3146 ± 0.0346
0.2579 ± 0.0542
0.3077 ± 0.0298
0.5217 ± 0.0247
0.5304 ± 0.0253
0.5238 ± 0.0317
BrainPro (Fixed)
0.3581 ± 0.0052
0.2749 ± 0.0060
0.3564 ± 0.0055
0.5992 ± 0.0104
0.6289 ± 0.0018
0.6483 ± 0.0023
Appendix
Table 14: Linear probing results on representative affective and motor-related downstream tasks.
Figure 6: Effects of learning rate on BrainPro fine-tuning.
Encoder No.
FACED
BCI-IV-2A
ACC-B
Kappa
F1-W
MLP Ratio
ACC-B
Kappa
F1-W
MLP Ratio
1
0.5635 ± 0.0031
0.5088 ± 0.0050
0.5710 ± 0.0049
0.51
0.5527 ± 0.0218
0.4036 ± 0.0290
0.5504 ± 0.0236
0.59
1
0.5808 ± 0.0048
0.5255 ± 0.0068
0.5840 ± 0.0079
1.02
0.5403 ± 0.0206
0.3871 ± 0.0275
0.5368 ± 0.0245
1.16
2
0.5937 ± 0.0087
0.5418 ± 0.0092
0.6023 ± 0.0061
1.00
0.5674 ± 0.0148
0.4232 ± 0.0198
0.5653 ± 0.0169
1.00
3
0.5938 ± 0.0069
0.5427 ± 0.0069
0.6039 ± 0.0042
0.93
0.5889 ± 0.0165
0.4519 ± 0.0220
0.5868 ± 0.0157
1.07
3
0.5988 ± 0.0057
0.5477 ± 0.0058
0.6098 ± 0.0043
1.49
0.5797 ± 0.0229
0.4396 ± 0.0305
0.5764 ± 0.0245
1.41
Appendix
Table 15: Effect of encoder count and relative MLP size on performance. MLP Ratio is computed w.r.t. BrainPro.
Figure 7: Effects of noisy samples on BrainPro pretraining.
Setting
BCI-IV-2A
Mental Arithmetic
ACC-B
Kappa
F1-W
ACC-B
AUC-PR
AUROC
w/o reset
0.5222 ± 0.0406
0.3630 ± 0.0541
0.5109 ± 0.0490
0.8017 ± 0.0122
0.8955 ± 0.0113
0.8471 ± 0.0184
reset
0.5674 ± 0.0148
0.4232 ± 0.0198
0.5653 ± 0.0169
0.8083 ± 0.0156
0.8980 ± 0.0052
0.8512 ± 0.0083
Appendix
Table 16: Effect of resetting temporal position embedding on BCI-IV-2A and Mental Arithmetic datasets.
Token Merge
BCI-VI-2A
Mental Arithmetic
ACC-B
Kappa
F1-W
ACC-B
AUC-PR
AUROC
Aggr
0.5674 ± 0.0148
0.4232 ± 0.0198
0.5653 ± 0.0169
0.7367 ± 0.0315
0.8353 ± 0.0175
0.7822 ± 0.0141
Mean
0.4090 ± 0.0470
0.2120 ± 0.0627
0.3664 ± 0.0703
0.8083 ± 0.0156
0.8980 ± 0.0052
0.8512 ± 0.0083
All
0.5373 ± 0.0315
0.3831 ± 0.0421
0.5295 ± 0.0335
0.5883 ± 0.0347
0.6753 ± 0.0131
0.6293 ± 0.0160
Appendix
Table 17: Comparison of different token selection strategies on BCI-VI-2A and Mental Arithmetic datasets.
Method
Parameters
FLOPs
EEGNet
0.005M
10.03M
Conformer
0.17M
50.09M
BIOT
3.28M
229.35M
EEGPT
51.66M
9.31G
LaBraM
9.43M
392.68M
CBraMod
8.45M
350.79M
Appendix
Table 18: Comparison of model complexity.
Figure 8: Visualization of learned filters for three groups of encoders after pretraining: Affect (top row), Motor (middle row), and Shared (bottom row).
Figure 9: SEED-VII analysis. (a) Performance of three branch configurations. (b) Class recall (7 classes) calculated as nii/∑jnij from single-run confusion matrices.
Figure 10: Effect of pretraining data size on FACED and BCI-IV-2A. Each panel uses a restricted vertical range to show performance changes.
Figure 11: Effect of the separation margin on FACED and BCI-IV-2A. The three panels show ACC-B, Kappa, and F1-W.
Figure 12: Comparison of regional weighting schedules on FACED and BCI-IV-2A. The settings use uniform weighting, fixed sharpness of 15, and epoch-dependent sharpness.
Figure 13: Comparison of spatial retrieval configurations on FACED and BCI-IV-2A. Region only uses regional retrieval. Channel only uses channel retrieval. Both combines the two spatial scales.
Figure 14: Comparison of feature fusion methods on FACED and BCI-IV-2A. The alternatives are addition, learned weighting, and concatenation.
Figure 15: Linear probes on frozen representations. (a) Dataset identity prediction within each process family. The matched process branches are A, M, and O. Panels (b), (c), and (d) show process prediction with one dataset excluded from probe training. Dataset identity comparisons are made within each family. The dashed line indicates chance balanced accuracy of 1/3 .
Figure 16: Branch exposure after data cleaning. Bars show each process family’s proportion of retained pretraining windows. Labels give the corresponding window counts.
Figure 17: Montage coverage for (a) 19 pretraining configurations and (b) nine downstream datasets. Skyblue indicates retained channels. Light gray indicates discarded channels. Labels give retained and input channel counts. Retained template indices are unique in all evaluated mappings. Repeated TUEP and TUSZ rows represent distinct montage configurations.
Electroencephalography (EEG) foundation models learn reusable representations of brain signals for transfer across people, tasks, and recording setups.
Electroencephalography (EEG) decoding models often generalize poorly across datasets and subjects due to domain shifts in acquisition protocols and individual neurophysiology. We propose EEG-PRIME, a two-stage EEG foundation model for cross-dataset multi-task decoding. EEG-PRIME combines masked pretraining with prototype-aligned instruction tuning to enable instruction-aware and subject-invariant decoding across diverse BCI paradigms. During pretraining, an EEG encoder learns transferable representations through masked reconstruction with frequency-cutoff spectral augmentation. During instruction tuning, EEG-PRIME incorporates task-semantic, dataset-specific, and subject-invariant conditioning. The resulting conditioning signal modulates the Q-Former through Layer-wise Query Modulation, while frozen text embeddings of class labels serve as prototypes for cosine-similarity-based prediction across heterogeneous label spaces. Experiments on sixteen datasets covering motor imagery, emotion recognition, ADHD detection, covert speech, and mental workload show consistent improvements over state-of-the-art baselines and prior EEG foundation models under cross-subject settings. On two additional held-out datasets, EEG-PRIME achieves balanced accuracy comparable to within-session calibration models without target-domain optimization, calibration, or linear probing, demonstrating promising zero-shot transfer capability.
Shuailei Zhang, Muyun Jiang, Wei Zhang +5
College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · Southeast University, China · Centre for AI in Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Foundation models pre-trained through masked reconstruction on large-scale EEG data have emerged as a promising paradigm for learning generalizable neural representations across diverse brain-computer interface applications. However, a critical yet overlooked challenge is that EEG encoders must learn representations invariant to incomplete observations-when different masked views of the same signal have minimal overlap, existing methods fail to constrain them to a consistent latent subspace, leading to degraded transferability. To address this, we propose DARE-EEG, a self-supervised foundation model that explicitly enforces the mask-invariance property through dual-aligned representation learning during pre-training. Specifically, we introduce mask alignment that constrains representations from multiple masked views of the same EEG sample via contrastive learning, complementing anchor alignment that aligns masked representations to momentum-updated complete features for semantic stability. Additionally, we propose conv-linear-probing, a parameter-efficient strategy that adapts pre-trained representations to heterogeneous electrode configurations and sampling rates through decoupled spectro-spatial projections. Extensive experiments across diverse EEG benchmarks demonstrate that DARE-EEG consistently achieves state-of-the-art in accuracy performance while maintaining relatively low parameter complexity and superior cross-dataset portability compared to existing methods. Furthermore, DARE-EEG contributes to effectively discovering and utilizing the rich potential representations in EEG.
Yang Shao, Peiliang Gong, Qun Dai +1
College of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
EEG visual decoding remains difficult because scalp recordings are noisy, spatially coarse, and variable across trials and subjects. Most systems align each trial with a dense image embedding, although that embedding mixes semantic content with instance-specific texture, pose, and background. This target can demand details absent from EEG and provides no explicit account of the visual factors supporting a prediction. We propose ProtoEEG, a prototype-mediated framework that reformulates EEG--image alignment as soft composition over a shared learnable visual codebook. A trainable EEG encoder and a frozen visual teacher produce assignment distributions over the same K=64 prototypes. Their weighted reconstructions form a structured representation for retrieval and image generation. Prototype contrast supplies the main cross-modal training signal, distribution alignment coordinates codebook use across modalities, an instance anchor preserves fine-grained discrimination, and diversity regularization prevents redundant prototypes. The shared assignment profile also makes the learned bottleneck directly testable through prototype retention, random selection, and identity shuffling. Across five seeds, ProtoEEG reaches 64.0% Top-1 and 91.5% Top-5 on THINGS-EEG2 200-way retrieval. After retraining on EEG-ImageNet, it obtains 44.8% Top-1 and 73.8% Top-5 in 80-way retrieval. ProtoEEG also ranks first on all seven reconstruction metrics. Removing prototype contrast lowers Top-1 by 56.9 percentage points, while shuffling prototype identities reduces it to 0.5%. Prototype analyses further show distributed assignments and broad codebook use rather than one-prototype routing. These results support structured alignment targets as a practical alternative to increasing encoder or teacher capacity alone.