Mechanistic Interpretability of EEG Foundation Models via Sparse Autoencoders

Clinical electroencephalogram (EEG) analysis rests on a hand-crafted feature catalog refined over decades, \emph{e.g.,} band power, connectivity, complexity, and more. Modern EEG foundation models bypass this catalog, learn directly from raw signals via self-supervised pretraining, and match or outperform feature-engineered baselines on most clinical benchmarks. Whether the two representations align is an open question, which we decompose into three sub-questions: \emph{what does the model learn}, \emph{what does the model use}, and \emph{how much can be explained}. We answer them with layer-wise ridge probing, LEACE-style cross-covariance subspace erasure, and a transparent classifier benchmarked against a random-feature baseline. The audit covers three foundation models (CSBrain, CBraMod, LaBraM), five clinical tasks (MDD, Stress, ISRUC-Sleep, TUSL, Siena), and a 6-family 63-feature lexicon. Of the $945$ (model, task, feature) units, $648$ ($68.6\%$) are representation-causal and $199$ ($21.1\%$) are encoded-only. Across tasks, $50$ features qualify as universal candidates with strong support (all three architectures RC) in two or more tasks. Frequency-domain features dominate, but the other five families each contribute substantial causal mass. Confirmed features recover, on average, $79.3\%$ of the foundation model's advantage over the random baseline, with a clean task gradient (MDD $\approx 0.99$ down to Stress $\approx 0.56$): tasks near ceiling are almost fully recovered by the lexicon, while harder tasks leave a non-trivial residual that pinpoints a concrete target for future concept discovery.

EEG foundation models (EEG-FMs) have been evaluated predominantly on clean, in-distribution accuracy, leaving their robustness, interpretability and representational quality largely unexamined. This study addresses these gaps by benchmarking six EEG-FMs against a baseline deep learning model across eight datasets. Beyond clean accuracy, we conduct three layers of analysis: (i) Robustness: we apply test-time perturbations including additive noise, random and region-based channel dropout and region-specific noise injection. Our analyses show that no single model dominates all failure modes. The most noise-robust model is among the most fragile under channel dropout and much of the dropout fragility disappears when channels are removed rather than zero-padded. (ii) Interpretability: we present the first application of Attention-Aware Layer-Wise Relevance Propagation (AttnLRP) to EEG-FMs and show that models broadly concentrate relevance on task-appropriate brain regions consistent with known neurophysiology. However, attribution maps remain spatially stable under perturbation while predictions degrade, suggesting that the models attend to the correct brain regions but decode corrupted content. (iii) Expressiveness: With block-wise probing we show that late blocks are repurposed during fine-tuning, while early blocks already hold task-related information. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the poor head-only performance previously attributed to low-quality pre-trained representations is largely explained by pooling and that EEG-FMs possess sufficient representational capacity when their token-level embeddings are preserved. Together, these findings provide the first systematic assessment of robustness, interpretability and expressiveness for EEG-FMs and highlight critical considerations for their development.

EEG foundation models such as BIOT, LaBraM, and EEGMamba have achieved remarkable performance in neural signal decoding, but their black-box nature limits clinical trust and neuroscientific validation. We propose a unified attribution framework for interpreting EEG foundation models across heterogeneous architectures. The framework integrates gradient-, perturbation-, and activation-based explanation methods to analyze model behavior in spatial, temporal, and frequency dimensions. Spatially, it identifies critical EEG channels and visualizes their distributions using topographic maps. Temporally, it highlights decision-relevant signal segments through attribution heatmaps. In the frequency domain, it quantifies the contributions of canonical EEG rhythms via spectral perturbation analysis. To assess explanation reliability, we introduce a population-level evaluation combining Area Over the Perturbation Curve (AOPC) and cross-method consistency analysis. The framework further leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to transform structured attribution outputs into natural-language reports, bridging low-level neural representations and high-level semantic reasoning. Experiments on benchmark datasets, including Mumtaz2016 and TUAB, demonstrate that the generated explanations are consistent with established neurophysiological markers, validating meaningful neural representations while exposing potential dependencies on artifacts and spurious patterns. The proposed framework provides a standardized approach for evaluating the interpretability, reliability, and physiological plausibility of EEG foundation models.