Large language models (LLMs) are becoming an increasingly important component of human--computer interaction, enabling users to coordinate a wide range of intelligent agents through natural language. While language-based interfaces are powerful and flexible, they implicitly assume that users can reliably produce explicit linguistic input, an assumption that may not hold for users with speech or motor impairments, e.g., Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). In this work, we investigate whether neural signals can be used as an alternative input to LLMs, particularly to support those socially marginalized or underserved users. We build a simple brain-LLM interface, which uses EEG signals to guide image generation models at test time. Specifically, we first train a classifier to estimate user satisfaction from EEG signals. Its predictions are then incorporated into a test-time scaling (TTS) framework that dynamically adapts model inference using neural feedback collected during user evaluation. The experiments show that EEG can predict user satisfaction, suggesting that neural activity carries information on real-time preference inference. These findings provide a first step toward integrating neural feedback into adaptive language-model inference, and hopefully open up new possibilities for future research on adaptive LLM interaction.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivation for EEG-based interface for LLM. Existing large language models rely mainly on explicit linguistic feedback such as typed instructions or corrections. However, there may exist a group of users with speech or motor impairments ( e.g . , ALS) thus language may not be available. For those users, we investigate whether neural signals can be used as an alternative input to LLMs.
Figure 2: Meta-information on the semantic themes, challenge categories, and EEG data collection procedure of BLID. (A) Visualization of the six semantic themes and fourteen challenging aspects of text-to-image generation used to construct the stimulus set. (B) Balanced distribution of prompt–image pairs across six semantic themes and fourteen challenge categories, ensuring diverse coverage of both objective constraints and subjective nuances. (C) Illustration of the EEG collection procedure. The experiment consisted of five evaluation blocks ( 12 minutes each). Each block contained 26 trials, and each trial lasted approximately 28 seconds, including stimulus presentation, evaluation periods, and inter-trial intervals.
Figure 3: Overview of the Brain-LLM interface. Left: Participants view image stimuli while wearing a 64-channel EEG cap; Right: the signals are recorded and amplified to train an EEG foundation model that predicts user satisfaction. During inference, a generation model produces an initial answer, and the EEG model monitors the user’s neural response, classifying each trial as “Satisfied” or “Not satisfied”. If not satisfied, the system triggers test time scaling step and loops until the user is satisfied or a maximum number of iterations is reached.
Category
Methods
Accuracy
F1-Score
AUROC
Recall
G-mean
MCC
Hand-crafted
LDA
70.18 1.65
70.72 2.53
74.26 2.81
71.45 5.40
70.01 1.51
40.50 3.37
LR
72.32 2.86
72.06 3.68
79.32 3.09
72.05 6.62
72.16 2.93
44.85 5.69
SVM
77.85 2.06
77.41 2.46
86.58 3.22
76.67 4.59
77.75 2.11
55.83 4.06
End-to-end
EEG-Conformer
68.00 1.77
68.18 1.67
72.85 3.27
68.60 2.88
67.94 1.75
36.06 3.56
EEGNet
70.20 1.75
69.81 2.10
76.20 1.67
69.00 3.39
70.15 1.77
40.45 3.49
CBraMod
77.10 2.01
75.88 2.38
84.78 1.79
72.77 5.43
76.80 2.00
54.59 4.11
Table 1: Performance of EEG satisfaction classification. We compare two categories of models: (1) handcrafted feature–based classifiers (LDA, Logistic Regression, SVM) and (2) end-to-end neural models fine-tuned on raw EEG (EEGNet, EEG-Conformer,CBraMod,LaBraM). Metrics include Accuracy, F1, AUROC, Recall, G-Mean, and MCC. Results show that EEG signals carry information relevant to distinguishing “ Satisfied ” vs. “ Unsatisfied ” states, with LaBraM achieving the highest overall performance.
Figure 4: Time-resolved decoding analysis of user satisfaction. We evaluate the decoding accuracy of representative hand-crafted (SVM) and end-to-end (LaBraM) models using a sliding window approach relative to the button press (0.0s). The shaded regions represent the standard deviation across participants.
Figure 5: Topographical maps of single-channel classification accuracy for four participants. Warm colors indicate electrodes with higher decoding accuracy, and cool colors indicate lower accuracy. While individual variability is present, several regions show consistently higher performance across participants.
Category
Model
Condition
CLIP Score
BLIP Score
Aesthetic
VQA Score
Human
Success Rate
Open Source
Stable Diffusion XL
First Generation
27.23
88.90
6.11
37.72
2.56
3.33
Brain-LLM
28.71
97.41
6.51
52.21
3.08
27.62
Wanx-v1
First Generation
25.35
84.81
6.31
41.62
2.62
6.67
Brain-LLM
27.70
88.04
6.65
51.06
2.91
17.62
Wan2.2-t2i-flash
First Generation
26.34
96.57
6.21
35.48
3.34
33.33
Brain-LLM
27.56
97.56
6.43
45.33
3.81
65.24
Table 2: Effectiveness of the Brain-LLM interface. We apply the framework to a range of state-of-the-art text-to-image models, including both open-source and proprietary systems. Performance is evaluated using 6 metrics: CLIP Score, BLIP Score, Aesthetic Score, VQA Score, the average human rating (Human, 1–5), and the final success rate,which represents the percentage of images the user finds satisfactory after evaluation through The Brain-LLM Interface for TTS. Across all models, the Brain-LLM framework consistently improves generation quality and preference alignment relative to the baseline.
Figure 6: Classification accuracy ablation. The rightmost bar (”All”) shows the baseline performance using all electrodes. The frontal region contributes most significantly to decoding performance.
Figure 7: The effect of TTS on feedback iterations. This figure shows the change in GPT-4o performance across Human Score and VQA Score as the number of Brain-LLM feedback iterations increases. Both metrics exhibit a steady upward trend, suggesting that iterative EEG-guided refinement can provide incremental improvements to the generated outputs.
Figure 8: Examples of improvement through Brain-LLM feedback in image generation. This figure illustrates the gradual improvements achieved through Brain-LLM feedback across several examples. For each prompt, we compare VQA Score and Human Score before and after iterative feedback. Images on the left show the initial generations, while those on the right show the outputs after Brain-LLM refinement. As feedback iterations increase, the generated images show clearer details and better adherence to the prompt, suggesting that EEG-guided refinement can contribute to incremental improvements in model performance.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 9: Radar plot visualizing the decoding performance of ten participants on the binary preference classification task. The green solid line represents individual subject accuracies, while the red and blue dashed lines indicate the group average (80.4%) and the chance level (50%), respectively.
Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful representation learners whose internal features increasingly align with human cognition. We study whether modern LLMs can serve as a lens for understanding neural representations in the human brain, focusing on emotional valence in EEG. We first build a one-dimensional valence direction, the V-axis, from modern LLMs using only nine emotion-evocative sentences. We validate it through zero-shot transfer to sentiment benchmarks and cross-model consistency across fourteen LLMs. We then show that this LLM-derived direction maps onto human neural activity. On a public EEG cohort of 123 subjects watching affective videos, a single linear projection on EEG features tracks the V-axis position of each stimulus. Moreover, 36 EEG emotion classifiers trained without exposure to the V-axis spontaneously rediscover the same direction in their internal representations, suggesting that the same valence structure emerges in both language models and human electrophysiology. Yet this convergence does not provide an effective training signal. We test twenty-five alignment strategies, including knowledge distillation, representational similarity, contrastive, and topographic losses; none improve decoding, and sixteen significantly reduce accuracy. We formalize this result as the saturation regularity: once task labels alone drive a brain-decoding network onto the target direction, additional supervision mainly distorts an already-saturated basin, while the load-bearing within-class residual receives little useful gradient. This regularity also indicates where improvement should come from: the residual subspace unreachable by supervision. Motivated by this insight, we ensemble across residual diversity rather than supervising the basin, improving balanced accuracy by 10.5% over the prior best on FACED, with the same effect replicated on SEED-V.
Yousef A. Radwan, Xuhui Liu, Kilichbek Haydarov +2
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)
To align a Large Language Model (LLM), most existing methods collect explicit human feedback and train a reward model to predict the human preference based on the response text. These existing methods have two key limitations. First, the users rarely provide explicit feedback for LLM responses, which makes the high-quality preference annotation expensive to collect. Second, the methods do not leverage implicit human feedback, which has proven vital to the economic moats of Internet giants. To quantify the value of implicit feedback, we build a new dataset called IFLLM, which collects 1336 multi-turn questions from the 59 Mechanical Turk workers, their mouse trajectories, and eye gazing points to the LLMs' responses from their webcams. IFLLM shows that the users have very diverse types of gazing behavior and mouse trajectories. Our reward model based on the implicit user feedback boosts the accuracy of the text-based reward model from 55% to 64% and nearly triples the relative response quality improvements after applying the DPO to eight LLMs, demonstrating the value of implicit feedback in the wild. Our data collection website, dataset, and codes can be found at https://github.com/themehulpatwari/llm-implicit-feedback/.
Haw-Shiuan Chang, Jeffrey Gomez, Mehul Patwari +2
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA · York University, Canada
Consumer-grade EEG is entering everyday devices, from earbuds to headbands, raising the question of whether language models can be adapted to individual neural responses. We test this by asking whether frozen LLM representations encode person-specific EEG signals, directions in activation space that predict one person's brain activity but not another's. Using word-level EEG from 30 participants reading naturalistic sentences (ZuCo corpus), we train a separate linear probe for each person, mapping hidden states from a frozen Qwen 2.5 7B to that individual's EEG power. Person-specific probes outperform a single population probe on every EEG feature tested; for high-gamma power, the person-specific probe achieves rho = 0.183, a ninefold improvement over the population probe (rho = 0.020, p < 10^-4). A negative control, fixation count, shows no person-specific advantage (p = 0.360); fixation count reflects word length and frequency rather than individual cognition. The individual directions are temporally stable (split-half cosine = 0.824), non-transferable across people (self rho = 0.369 vs. other rho = 0.143, p < 10^-19), and distinct from the shared population signal: person-specific probes retain predictive power after the population component is removed. The person-specific signal concentrates in the model's deep layers, rising consistently with depth and peaking at Layer 24 of 28. The results are consistent across architectures (LLaMA 3.1 8B) and survive word-level confound controls. Frozen language models contain stable, person-specific neural directions in their deep layers, providing a geometric foundation for EEG-driven personalization.
Ajan Subramanian, Sumukh Bettadapura, Rohan Sathish