Measuring Robustness of Speech Recognition from MEG Signals Under Distribution Shift
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, National Tsing-Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
Abstract
This study investigates robust speech-related decoding from non-invasive MEG signals using the LibriBrain phoneme-classification benchmark from the 2025 PNPL competition. We compare residual convolutional neural networks (CNNs), an STFT-based CNN, and a CNN--Transformer hybrid, while also examining the effects of group averaging, label balancing, repeated grouping, normalization strategies, and data augmentation. Across our in-house implementations, preprocessing and data-configuration choices matter more than additional architectural complexity, among which instance normalization emerges as the most influential modification for generalization. The strongest of our own models, a CNN with group averaging, label balancing, repeated grouping, and instance normalization, achieves 60.95% F1-macro on the test split, compared with 39.53% for the plain CNN baseline. However, most of our models, without instance normalization, show substantial validation-to-test degradation, indicating that distribution shift induced by different normalization statistics is a major obstacle to generalization in our experiments. By contrast, MEGConformer maintains 64.09% F1-macro on both validation and test, and saliency-map analysis is qualitatively consistent with this contrast: weaker models exhibit more concentrated or repetitive phoneme-sensitive patterns across splits, whereas MEGConformer appears more distributed. Overall, the results suggest that improving the reliability of non-invasive phoneme decoding will likely require better handling of normalization-related distribution shift while also addressing the challenge of single-trial decoding.
Figures & tables
| Split | Trials | Phonemes | Standardization |
|---|---|---|---|
| Train | 76 | 1,336,606 | Train statistics |
| Validation | 14 | 283,690 | Train statistics |
| Test | 14 | 283,690 | Test statistics |
| Holdout | 1 | 2,382 | Holdout statistics |
| Total | 91 | 1,622,678 | – |
| Configuration [-0.15ex] (Ungrouped) | Train [-0.15ex] (Ungrouped) | Val. [-0.15ex] (Ungrouped) | Test [-0.15ex] (Ungrouped) | Test -0.15ex | Holdout [-0.15ex] (Ungrouped) |
| CNN, Label-Balancing, Repeat | 90.81 | 71.95 | 47.47 | 2.73 | 35.40 |
| CNN, +LayerNorm | 96.62 | 44.49 | 43.17 | – | 24.40 |
| CNN, No Group Averaging | 34.55 | 45.08 | 39.53 | N/A | 13.20 |
| CNN + Augmentation (Section 3.1.4 ) | 48.55 | 49.31 | 34.03 | – | 18.80 |
| CNN-Transformer | 85.83 | 68.02 | 30.70 | 0.14 | 3.90 |
| CNN, Label-Balancing, Repeat , +InstanceNorm | 99.43 | 62.75 | 60.95 | 4.00 | – |
| Model | Pearson ( ) | Spearman ( ) |
|---|---|---|
| CNN | 0.5465 0.0529 | 0.5333 0.0520 |
| CNN + InstanceNorm | 0.9996 0.0003 | 0.9996 0.0003 |
| CNN–Transformer | 0.4701 0.0868 | 0.5099 0.0808 |
| CNN–Transformer + InstanceNorm | 0.9999 0.0000 | 0.9999 0.0002 |
| STFT CNN | 0.3770 0.0448 | 0.3645 0.0448 |
| STFT CNN + InstanceNorm | 0.9562 0.0102 | 0.9503 0.0123 |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Train | Validation | Test | Holdout | Backbone | GroupAvg. | LabelBal. | Repeat | Note |
| 90.81 | 71.95 | 47.47 | 35.40 | (a) | ✓ | ✓ | 10 | |
| 96.62 | 44.49 | 43.17 | 24.40 | (a) | ✓ | ✓ | 1 | +LayerNorm |
| 80.06 | 71.77 | 44.28 | 21.60 | (a) | ✓ | ✓ | 1 | |
| 48.55 | 49.31 | 34.03 | 18.80 | (a) | ✓ | ✗ | 1 | +Augmentation |
| 34.55 | 45.08 | 39.53 | 13.20 | (a) | ✗ | ✗ | 1 | Baseline |
| 68.16 | 64.27 | 47.74 | 3.60 | (a) | ✓ | ✓ | 1 | +Augmentation |