OmniEEG-Bench: A Standardized Evaluation Benchmark for EEG Foundation Models

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.

Evaluating foundation models under appropriate adaptation settings is essential for understanding the quality and transferability of the learned representations. Recent EEG foundation models have demonstrated promising transfer capabilities across tasks and datasets, motivating their growing use in neurotechnology and clinical applications. However, these models are typically evaluated under full fine-tuning on well-curated downstream datasets, a setting that does not reflect biomedical domain constraints such as limited labeled data, reduced sensor coverage, or parameter-efficient adaptation. In this work, we propose a multi-dimensional evaluation framework for assessing EEG models under realistic low-resource conditions. Empirical analysis of both supervised EEG models and recent EEG foundation models, including LaBraM, CSBrain, and CBraMod, across 6 different datasets is performed under the proposed multi-dimensional evaluation framework. We find that EEG foundation models consistently provide performance gains on long-context tasks such as sleep stage prediction and mental health state classification. In contrast, for short-window Brain Computer Interface style tasks, supervised models achieve comparable despite having substantially fewer parameters. Additional analyses demonstrate that current foundation models provide limited robustness to short-window tasks and channel constrained settings. Together, these findings motivate the use of multi-dimensional evaluation protocols that characterize model behavior under realistic use constraints.

Deep learning and large public datasets have recently catalyzed the proliferation of AI models for processing brain recordings. However, systematically evaluating these models remains a challenge: not only do the preprocessing pipelines, training and finetuning approaches largely vary across studies, but their downstream evaluation is often limited to small sets of tasks and/or datasets. Here, we present NeuralBench: a unified framework for benchmarking AI models of brain activity. We accompany this framework with NeuralBench-EEG v1.0 -- a large EEG benchmark that includes 36 electroencephalography (EEG) tasks and 14 deep learning architectures, and is evaluated on 94 datasets accessed through a standardized interface. This first EEG-focused release already highlights two main findings. First, current foundation models only marginally outperform task-specific models. Second, a large set of tasks (e.g. cognitive decoding, clinical predictions) remain highly challenging, even for the best models. Critically, NeuralBench is designed for the integration of new tasks, datasets, models, and neuroimaging modalities, as illustrated by preliminary extensions to MEG and fMRI datasets and models. Through this white paper, we invite the community to expand this open-source framework and work together toward a unified benchmarking standard for neuroimaging models.