q-bio.NCJul 23, 2026

Cross-Cohort Spectral-Temporal Dissociation in Frozen EEG Foundation-Model Representations

Authors: Marzieh Zare

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

Abstract

Objective. We tested whether frozen representations from five EEG foundation models support decoding of long-range temporal correlations, measured as the detrended-fluctuation-analysis (DFA) exponent of the alpha-band amplitude envelope. Approach. REVE, LaBraM, BENDR, CBraMod, and BIOT were evaluated in CAUEEG and BrainLat. A common 240 s estimator used 8-13 Hz filtering, DFA over 2-23.8 s, artifact masking, and quality control. One fixed nested-cross-validation readout predicted DFA and a fixed-mode aperiodic exponent. Controls tested pre-pool order sensitivity and aperiodic residualization. Results. CAUEEG included 764 recordings and BrainLat 79. BIOT decoded DFA in CAUEEG (R-squared = 0.232; conditional subject-bootstrap 95 percent interval, 0.121-0.310), and CBraMod was positive but imprecise (R-squared = 0.121; 0.003-0.214). Neither replicated in BrainLat, where all five point estimates were negative. In contrast, CBraMod and BIOT decoded the aperiodic exponent in both cohorts (R-squared = 0.459-0.757). BIOT remained positive after removal of the measured linear aperiodic association in matched CAUEEG data (R-squared = 0.240). The post-hoc order control was batch- and configuration-sensitive. Because chronological EEG epochs are not exchangeable, it was descriptive, not an LRTC-specific test. No revised DFA transfer direction passed source-label permutation testing. Cohort membership was near-ceiling decodable from all five embeddings, but this is not a pure site effect. Significance. CBraMod and BIOT show a replicated, model-specific spectral-temporal dissociation: aperiodic decoding is present in both cohorts, whereas alpha-envelope DFA decoding is cohort-dependent. These findings bound the evaluated readouts; they do not establish representational absence or an architectural cause. Transfer and clinical associations remain exploratory.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jul 27, 2026cs.LG

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

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.
Marzieh Zare
Electroencephalography Foundation ModelsElectroencephalogramElectronic Health Record Foundation ModelsEcg-Specific AugmentationsNegatives
AskPDF
Jun 4, 2026cs.LG

The Identity Trap in EEG Foundation Models: A Diagnostic Audit

Objective. EEG foundation models (FMs) report strong accuracy on clinical resting-state EEG. However, high accuracy under subject-disjoint cross-validation remains ambiguous: it can reflect a genuine clinical biomarker, or subject-identity features that correlate with the label. We name this the Identity Trap and ask whether it can be diagnosed at the representation level before fine-tuning. Approach. We propose FMScope, a frozen-representation protocol packaging five diagnostics: variance decomposition, subject-axis erasure, aperiodic 1/f ablation, layer-wise label probing, and within-subject direction consistency. We apply it to three pretrained FMs (LaBraM, CBraMod, REVE) across four datasets in a 2x2 layout: subject relation of label x presence of a consensus cross-subject EEG marker. Main results. (i) The Identity Trap is universal: frozen subject-variance is 13-89x a random null in 12/12 pairs, rising in all 12 under fine-tuning (+10 to +63 pp). This dominance is a removable linear axis: erasing it improves label decoding where the label varies within subject (+6 to +12 pp in primary cells; +4 to +27 pp across external cohorts). (ii) Aperiodic 1/f is one subject carrier: removing it drops the subject probe by 9-19 pp on LaBraM and CBraMod. REVE saturates subject identity without measurable aperiodic dependence. (iii) Fine-tuning amplifies label-variance only in cells with a literature-established cross-subject marker. Significance. The Identity Trap is a physically-grounded instance of shortcut learning: the preferred cue has a measurable physiological component, and subject-disjoint splitting alone cannot rule it out. FMScope separates gains reflecting a biological marker from those reflecting subject identity.
Jun-You Lin, Ying Choon Wu, Tzyy-Ping Jung
Electroencephalography Foundation ModelsElectroencephalogramBiomarkerIdentity
AskPDF
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 945945 (model, task, feature) units, 648648 (68.6%68.6\%) are representation-causal and 199199 (21.1%21.1\%) are encoded-only. Across tasks, 5050 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%79.3\% of the foundation model's advantage over the random baseline, with a clean task gradient (MDD ≈0.99\approx 0.99 down to Stress ≈0.56\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 ModelsElectroencephalogramElectronic Health Record Foundation ModelsWireless Foundation ModelsFoundation Model
AskPDF