A foundation model for electrodermal activity data

Foundation models (FMs) are increasingly being developed for general time series and physiological signals, yet their transferability to downstream physiological tasks remains poorly understood. This question is particularly challenging for electromyography (EMG), where signal distributions vary substantially across users, sensing configurations, acquisition hardware, and downstream tasks. We introduce EMG-FM-Bench, a systematic benchmark for studying foundation-model transfer and adaptation on EMG. EMG-FM-Bench unifies 20 public datasets with over 1 million EMG segments and evaluates nine pretrained foundation models across four questions: how pretrained models perform when frozen or fully fine-tuned, how much pretraining helps compared with training the same model from scratch, how well models generalize to new users with limited labeled data, and how performance changes across different EMG tasks. Across the benchmark, linear probing provides useful information about pretrained representations, but full fine-tuning can substantially change downstream EMG performance. Comparing each pretrained model with the same model trained from scratch shows that the benefit of pretraining varies substantially across models and is not universal. Performance decreases when models are evaluated on new users, while five-shot adaptation improves macro-F1 in 70.2% of evaluated model-dataset combinations but recovers only part of the lost performance. Model performance is highly consistent between upper- and lower-limb classification and remains strongly correlated with continuous EMG-to-text decoding. Together, these results provide a systematic view of when pretrained time-series models transfer effectively to EMG and how their performance depends on fine-tuning, user variation, and downstream task.

Wrist electrodermal activity (EDA) differs in amplitude from one person to the next, so affect-recognition models normalize their input before classification. Studies that test such models on held-out subjects seldom report where the normalization statistics come from, yet statistics computed from the held-out subject's own recording give the model information that a device does not have when it is first worn. We asked how this choice alters the measured benefit of pretraining. A compact convolutional network, SAFE-EDA, was pretrained on expert artifact annotations from 43 subjects and compared with the same network trained from scratch on the Wearable Stress and Affect Detection (WESAD) dataset (15 subjects, leave-one-subject-out), with two normalization sources crossed with four window hops. When the statistics came only from training subjects, pretraining raised macro-F1 by 0.078 to 0.227; when they came from the held-out user's full recording, the gain fell to between 0.020 and 0.050 and was no longer significant. Artifact supervision was far more useful than self-supervised pretraining on the same recordings (0.078 versus 0.008). Across 13 configurations in two datasets, the pretrained network was better in 12, but on the second dataset (26 subjects) per-user normalization increased the gain instead of reducing it, so the interaction depends on the data. Only five of 50 published WESAD studies state which data were used for normalization. Reporting this choice is necessary to separate first-use performance from performance after calibration.

Foundation models (FMs) promise to extract unified representations that generalize across downstream tasks. They have emerged across fields, including electroencephalography (EEG), but it is less clear how effective they are in this particular field. Published evaluations differ in datasets, in the EEG-specific preprocessing that might influence reported results, and in the reported metrics, frequently obscuring the clinical relevance in EEG. We introduce NeuroAtlas, the largest EEG benchmark to date: 42 datasets and 260k hours covering clinical EEG (epilepsy, sleep medicine, brain age estimation) and brain-computer interfaces, and include multiple datasets per task along with bespoke clinical evaluation metrics. Besides evaluating EEG-FMs with respect to supervised baselines, we present results from generic time-series FMs. We report three findings. First, EEG-specific FMs do not consistently outperform time-series FMs, which have neither EEG-focused architectures nor been pretrained on EEG. Second, standard machine learning metrics are insufficient to assess clinical utility: thus, we thoroughly evaluate more appropriate measures such as the quality of event-level decision-making, hypnogram-derived features, and the brain-age gap in the domains of epilepsy, sleep, and brain age, respectively. Third, model rankings and performance can vary substantially within domains. We conclude that pretrained models perform largely on par, with only narrow advantages for a few, and that current models do not yet deliver on the promise of an out-of-the-box unified EEG model. NeuroAtlas exposes this gap and provides the datasets and metrics for the next generation of unified EEG FMs.