What EEG Foundation Models Encode: Dataset Identity and a Negative-Control Suite for Clinical Benchmarks

Marzieh Zare

cs.LGJul 27, 2026

What EEG Foundation Models Encode: Dataset Identity and a Negative-Control Suite for Clinical Benchmarks

Authors: Marzieh Zare

Organizations: Universit´e Laval, School of Psychology, Quebec City, QC, Canada · NeuroGenis Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada

Abstract

Pretrained EEG foundation models are proposed for clinical decoding, but whether reported gains transfer across populations or survive negative controls is unclear. We benchmark LaBraM, EEGMamba, CBraMod, REVE, LEAD, BENDR, and BIOT on five clinical tasks across four datasets. Primary analyses use frozen linear probes with subject-disjoint LOSO or grouped five-fold validation. Because CAUEEG releases no patient identifiers, it is evaluated at recording level with a patient-disjoint sensitivity. We challenge apparent gains using stronger classical comparators, label permutation, scrambled-label fine-tuning, and random-initialisation controls. In a matched 19-channel CAUEEG evaluation (Normal/MCI/Dementia; N = 1,187 recordings), classical features achieve 0.734 macro-AUROC versus 0.699 for BIOT, 0.669 for CBraMod, and 0.568 for REVE. A patient-disjoint sensitivity retains the classical-over-REVE ordering (0.717 versus 0.565). Dataset identity is decoded from frozen REVE embeddings at or near ceiling across Western-Korean and Western-Western pairs, including after PCA-50 and removal of line-frequency and amplitude-scale information. This establishes dataset membership, not a causal site or population effect. A matched random-initialised encoder exceeds pretrained REVE on CAUEEG (0.659 versus 0.570). On CHB-MIT cross-subject ictal detection (n = 23), REVE reaches 0.793, versus 0.739 for the best enhanced nonlinear comparator, 0.701 for random initialisation, and 0.505 for raw-signal random features. Because preprocessing removes absolute amplitude, this does not establish superiority over every plausible handcrafted baseline. Conclusions change materially after montage matching, patient-overlap checks, stronger comparators, and representation controls. We distill these checks into a reporting protocol for clinical EEG foundation-model studies.

Explore similar work

May 12, 2026cs.AI

What Do EEG Foundation Models Capture from Human Brain Signals?

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.

Ling Tang, Qian Chen, Jilin Mei +6

Electroencephalography Foundation Models Electroencephalography Spatial Super-Resolution Electronic Health Record Foundation Models Wireless Foundation Models Brain Foundation Model

Ask PDF

May 14, 2026cs.LG

NeuroAtlas: Benchmarking Foundation Models for Clinical EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

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.

Konstantinos Kontras, Trui Osselaer, Stylianos G. Mouslech +12

Electroencephalography Foundation Models Brain-Computer Interface Electronic Health Record Foundation Models Brain Age Wireless Foundation Models

Ask PDF

Sep 20, 2026cs.LG

Matched-Input Estimates Differ in Sign Across Architectures: Auditing EEG Foundation Models on Motor Imagery

Pretrained EEG foundation models are increasingly proposed as general-purpose encoders for brain-computer interfaces, yet recent benchmarks disagree about when their representations transfer to downstream tasks. We audit LaBraM and CBraMod on motor imagery under a validation-locked protocol in which preprocessing, architecture, optimization, freeze depth, checkpoint, temperature, and method selection are determined using training-session data only. On four-class BCI Competition IV-2a, every supervised comparator evaluated here outperforms every foundation-model configuration, including validation-selected fine-tuning. We then examine a key confound: foundation models and task-specific decoders are normally evaluated using different input pipelines. Retraining three supervised architectures on the broadband arrays consumed by the foundation models produces matched-input accuracy differences of opposite sign across architectures: broadband input improves ATCNet by 0.078 accuracy while reducing EEG Conformer accuracy by 0.088. None of the three individual matched-input terms is significant after multiple-comparison correction at n = 9, so we treat the sign variation descriptively rather than as a formal architecture-by-pipeline interaction. These observed sign differences suggest that a single comparator may not provide an architecture-invariant decomposition of a pretrained-versus-supervised performance gap. The four-class deficit also does not reproduce uniformly across motor-imagery datasets: on two-class BNCI2014-004 we cannot detect the same separation between fine-tuned CBraMod and the supervised comparators. Finally, validation-fitted temperature scaling returns foundation-model calibration error to the supervised range despite substantially lower four-class accuracy.

Kevin Zhou, Sparsh Roy

Electroencephalography Foundation Models Wireless Foundation Models

Ask PDF