Organizations: Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · BIFOLD, Berlin Institute for the Foundations of Learning and Data, Berlin, Germany · ATR, Kyoto, Japan · Riken AIP, Tokyo, Japan · University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Electroencephalography (EEG)-based multimodal learning integrates brain signals with complementary modalities to improve mental state assessment, providing great clinical potential. The effectiveness of such paradigms largely depends on the representation learning on heterogeneous modalities. For EEG-based paradigms, one promising approach is to leverage their hierarchical structures, as recent studies have shown that both EEG and associated modalities (e.g., facial expressions) exhibit hierarchical structures reflecting complex cognitive processes. However, Euclidean embeddings struggle to represent these hierarchical structures due to their flat geometry, while hyperbolic spaces, with their exponential growth property, are naturally suited for them. In this work, we propose EEG-MoCE, a novel hyperbolic mixture-of-curvature experts framework designed for multimodal neurotechnology. EEG-MoCE assigns each modality to an expert in a learnable-curvature hyperbolic space, enabling adaptive modeling of its intrinsic geometry. A curvature-aware fusion strategy then dynamically weights experts, emphasizing modalities with richer hierarchical information. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate that EEG-MoCE achieves state-of-the-art performance, including emotion recognition, sleep staging, and cognitive assessment. Code is available at https://github.com/zhourunhe/EEG-MoCE.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Euclidean vs. hyperbolic geometry for hierarchical data. Euclidean space is flat and tends to under-represent hierarchical branching; hyperbolic space exhibits exponential volume growth and better preserves tree-like separation. Hyperbolic geometry is informative for multimodal learning, where modalities may differ in how strongly hierarchical their underlying structure is.
Figure 2: Architecture of EEG-MoCE on EAV dataset. Other datasets use the same overall architecture, with only modality encoders adapted. (a) Modality-specific hyperbolic experts : each modality (e.g., EEG, audio, video) is encoded by an expert that embeds inputs in its own learnable-curvature hyperbolic space. (b) Curvature-oriented fusion : expert representations are aggregated by a curvature-aware scheme, combining curvature-scaled temperature and a curvature prior bias, that favors modalities with richer hierarchical structures.
Dataset
Modality
Raw
Encoded
EAV ( n=42 )
EEG
0.097±0.021
0.160±0.013
Audio
0.217±0.023
0.293±0.028
Video
0.280±0.019
0.278±0.011
ISRUC ( n=10 )
EEG
0.107±0.010
0.202±0.019
EMG
0.072±0.007
0.202±0.008
EOG
0.137±0.013
0.253±0.028
Table 1: Hyperbolicity δrel measured for raw data and encoded features following ( Khrulkov et al., 2020 ) . Lower values indicate stronger hierarchical tree-like structure and better suitability for hyperbolic embedding. All datasets’ modalities show hyperbolic structure with δrel<0.3 . Modality-wise differences motivate modality-specific learnable curvature.
Modality
Encoded δrel
K
Contribution
EEG
0.160
-2.34
36.0
Vision
0.278
-2.29
33.6
Audio
0.293
-1.91
30.5
Table 2: Encoded δrel , learned curvature values K and attention-based modality contributions on EAV dataset, evaluated using a model with learnable curvatures but without curvature-oriented fusion. A negative association between δrel and ∣K∣ and a positive correlation between ∣K∣ and attention contribution support the curvature-oriented fusion hypothesis.
Dataset
λinit
λlearned
Δλ
EAV
0.300
0.464±0.036
+0.164
ISRUC
0.300
0.533±0.034
+0.233
Cognitive
0.300
0.332±0.009
+0.032
Table 3: Learned curvature prior λ , initialized at 0.30 on full model with curvature-oriented fusion. Values are mean ± std across cross-validation folds. λ consistently increases during training across datasets, indicating growing reliance on curvature information for attention weighting.
Method
Acc (%)
F1 (%)
MM-DFN
51.13±6.81
50.17±6.95
CTMWA
52.86±5.63
49.92±6.33
AGF-IB
54.59±12.45
54.20±15.03
LMF
57.29±12.37
56.80±14.16
CMERC
58.57±11.95
57.70±14.30
MMML
59.60±11.83
56.55±14.31
Table 4: Performance Comparison with State-of-the-Art Methods on EAV Emotion Recognition Dataset. We evaluate all methods using balanced accuracy (Acc) and macro-averaged F1-score (F1) under cross-subject 10-fold cross-validation protocol ( n=42 subjects).
Method
Acc (%)
F1 (%)
CMST
66.68±8.31
64.06±10.32
MMML
73.33±3.93
72.80±4.55
CFSNet
74.30±4.82
72.71±5.31
SSNet
74.56±4.10
74.13±4.83
MMNet
74.73±4.02
72.90±5.45
LMF
75.02±4.54
74.31±5.63
Table 5: Performance Comparison with State-of-the-Art Methods on ISRUC-S3 Sleep Staging Dataset. We evaluate all methods using balanced accuracy (Acc) and macro-averaged F1-score (F1) under leave-one-subject-out cross-validation protocol ( n=10 subjects).
Method
Acc (%)
F1 (%)
MMML
45.32±9.37
42.67±11.81
STA-Net
46.63±11.67
43.12±15.32
EFDFNet
49.15±12.85
45.00±15.13
CTMWA
49.86±11.72
45.71±12.23
ST2A
51.28±11.74
46.08±13.17
LMF
52.71±11.77
48.70±13.04
Table 6: Performance Comparison with State-of-the-Art Methods on Cognitive N-back Task. We evaluate all methods using balanced accuracy (Acc) and macro-averaged F1-score (F1) under cross-subject 10-fold cross-validation protocol ( n=26 subjects).
Encoder
Fusion
Acc (%)
F1 (%)
–
–
60.33±11.68
57.24±14.18
–
✓
61.48±12.63
58.79±14.47
✓
–
74.17±9.83
73.41±10.27
✓
✓ (Ours)
75.88±8.31
75.47±8.66
Table 7: Architecture ablation on EAV comparing Euclidean and hyperbolic choices for encoder and fusion. Four variants are shown: neither hyperbolic; hyperbolic fusion only; hyperbolic encoder only; both encoder and fusion. The combination of hyperbolic encoder and hyperbolic fusion produces the best result, indicating complementary benefits.
Figure 3: t-SNE of fused features on EAV dataset. Hyperbolic encoder and fusion variant produces more compact and better-separated emotion clusters than the Euclidean baseline variant, illustrating improved class separability by hyperbolic geometry.
Figure 4: Ablation of hyperbolic components on the EAV dataset, focusing on learnable curvature and curvature-oriented multimodal fusion (COMF). All fusion variants use learnable curvatures to isolate the effect of the fusion mechanism. Our proposed method achieves the best performance, demonstrating the complementary benefits of learnable curvatures and COMF.
Method
Train sec/epoch
Test msec/trial
MMML
10.86
1.17
Hyper-MML
12.95
1.24
GA2MIF
8.56
0.86
Ours
26.07
2.71
Table 8: Computational cost on EAV measured on the same RTX 4090 GPU. Train reports seconds per epoch and Test reports milliseconds per trial. EEG-MoCE is slower due to hyperbolic operations, but its absolute inference latency remains low for real-time deployment settings.
Dataset
Method
Acc (%)
F1 (%)
EAV
Ours
75.79±0.78
75.25±0.76
HEEGNet
61.54±0.76
60.37±0.77
ISRUC
Ours
78.42±0.31
75.10±0.29
XSleepFusion
75.02±0.67
73.30±0.71
Cognitive
Ours
61.86±1.75
59.23±1.64
EF-Net
54.28±2.41
51.36±2.35
Table 9: Seed-level robustness over 5 random seeds under the same cross-subject protocol as the main experiments. Values are mean ± std over seeds. Across EAV, ISRUC, and Cognitive, EEG-MoCE consistently exceeds the strongest baseline with low seed-level variance, supporting initialization robustness.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Modality
Acc (%)
F1 (%)
Video only
53.75±10.74
53.46±11.02
Audio only
60.52±8.14
60.23±8.42
EEG only
62.74±9.04
62.13±9.42
All modalities
75.88±8.31
75.47±8.66
Appendix
Table 10: Ablation study on single-modality performance on EAV dataset.
Dataset
Fusion
Acc (%)
F1 (%)
EAV
Mean
75.88±8.31
75.47±8.66
Learnable
75.55±8.57
75.10±9.13
ISRUC
Mean
78.53±2.95
75.38±4.05
Learnable
78.08±3.01
74.97±3.96
Cognitive
Mean
62.39±13.07
59.67±13.08
Learnable
60.96±13.48
57.68±13.61
Appendix
Table 11: Ablation of fusion-curvature parameterization in the shared manifold. Mean uses the arithmetic mean of modality curvatures, while Learnable treats the fusion curvature as an extra trainable parameter. Mean curvature performs comparably or slightly better across all datasets, supporting the stable and effective design choice.
Dataset
Mean K
Optimized K
EAV
−2.2544±0.1020
−2.2509±0.1013
ISRUC
−1.3511±0.0777
−1.3547±0.0760
Cognitive
−1.9834±0.0630
−1.9821±0.0623
Appendix
Table 12: Mean fusion curvature vs. optimization-based fusion curvature (Optimized K ) derived using the objective in ( Wei et al., 2026 ) . Values are mean ± std across folds. The close agreement across datasets supports the practical use of mean fusion curvature.
Method
Acc (%)
F1 (%)
MMML ( Wu et al., 2024 )
56.35±8.22
51.76±12.07
EFDFNet ( Xu et al., 2025 )
58.85±7.63
53.83±11.13
LMF ( Liu et al., 2018 )
59.74±6.18
59.16±6.38
CTMWA ( Zhang et al., 2024 )
59.87±8.15
58.68±8.63
STA-Net ( Liu et al., 2025 )
62.50±8.72
58.08±12.65
TSMMF ( Si et al., 2025 )
63.82±9.47
62.87±10.36
Appendix
Table 13: Performance comparison with state-of-the-art methods on the Cognitive dataset, Word Generation task ( n=26 ). We report balanced accuracy (Acc) and macro-averaged F1 (F1) under cross-subject 10-fold cross-validation.
Multimodal Emotion Recognition (MER) aims to understand human emotions by integrating information from multiple modalities such as speech and text. Psychological studies suggest that emotions exhibit latent hierarchical structured relationships in their semantic representations. However, most MER approaches rely on Euclidean representations, which capture fine-grained cross-modal interactions but do not explicitly provide a geometric prior for organizing hierarchical emotional structures. To mitigate this gap, we propose GeoMER, a joint Euclidean-Hyperbolic modeling framework that introduces hyperbolic emotion-core routing to capture higher-level, abstract emotional representations for MER. The proposed framework jointly models token-level cross-modal semantic interactions and latent emotion representations in two complementary geometric spaces. Specifically, GeoMER consists of a Euclidean Multimodal Fusion Module (EuclFusion) for multimodal representation fusion and a Hyperbolic Geometric Core Routing (HypGeoRoute) module that performs geometry-aware core assignment and aggregation in a hyperbolic manifold to capture more abstract feature representations. The HypGeoRoute module complements the Euclidean token-level modeling. We experiment on the IEMOCAP multimodal MER benchmark and demonstrate that the proposed method achieves the best performance, with 83.54% weighted accuracy and 83.35% unweighted accuracy, outperforming Euclidean baselines, including MemoCMT.
Ting Zhu, Huizhi Liang, Boguslaw Obara +2
Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom · Taiyuan University of Technology, Shanxi, China
Electroencephalography (EEG)-based closed-loop neuromodulation calls for a subject-specific structured state, as opposed to a single disease probability, specifying which brain regions are deviant, at which frequencies, and at which lags. Sensor-space models keep the strongest diagnostic evidence without anatomy, source-space models give anatomy at a loss of predictive signal, and post-hoc attributions stay outside the prediction. We separate the two instead of forcing them into one representation, and propose DMD-EEG (Dual-view Multiscale Deformation for EEG), which keeps a fixed scalp spectral expert for diagnosis and models the source-space disease-related representation as a low-rank, sparse, iterative deformation of a healthy neural-dynamics prior in a 46-region-of-interest (ROI) ×5-frequency ×4-lag (autocorrelation-timescale) space. The two experts meet only at a fixed decision level, so the source state is architecturally separate from the scalp expert. Across major depressive disorder (MDD), first-episode psychosis (FEP), and Parkinson's disease (PD), decision-level fusion matches the strongest single expert on MDD and FEP and exceeds the source branch on PD. On FEP the source expert is the strongest branch, the task where the deformation contributes most. The source state is an explicit ROI-frequency-lag attribution defined in a shared source coordinate system across montages, which we treat as an anatomically-coordinated predictive representation whose coordinates are directly readable and hypothesis-generating. The highest-saliency coordinates align with established disease circuitry (fronto-limbic-temporal regions in MDD, motor-cortex beta in PD), and the MDD state transfers by rank to an unseen cohort recorded with a different montage.
Multimodal physiological signals provide complementary cues for emotion recognition. They also raise two related challenges. Emotion-related EEG patterns vary across time, frequency bands, electrodes, and brain regions. Different physiological modalities also contain both modality-specific and shared affective information. This paper presents GMSI-Net, an EEG-centered multimodal emotion recognition framework. It has three key components. The temporal-spatial-spectral-region (TSSR) encoder models multiscale temporal-channel patterns, differential entropy features, and local-to-global brain-region relations. The modality-specific representation (MSR) branch uses bidirectional cross-modal attention and learnable gates. It controls information transfer while retaining modality-specific cues. The modality-invariant representation (MIR) branch learns a shared affective representation. An adaptively weighted contrastive loss aligns this representation across modalities. Independent multiscale Conv-Transformer encoders process the peripheral physiological signals. GMSI-Net is evaluated on DEAP and MAHNOB-HCI using within-subject random ten-fold cross-validation. The model reaches 96.21 (1.47) and 96.41 (1.60) for valence and arousal on DEAP. It reaches 94.10 (2.86) and 94.48 (3.77) on MAHNOB-HCI. These results indicate that combining EEG features with complementary physiological information can improve emotion recognition.
Jian Zhang, Manrong Liu, Yilei Huang +3
Henan Engineering Research Center for Artificial Intelligence Theory and Algorithms, School of Mathematics and Statistics, Henan University, Kaifeng, 475004, China. · The Second Clinical College, Henan University, Kaifeng, 475004, China.