BrainBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Comprehensive EEG Understanding

Electroencephalography (EEG) supports a variety of brain-computer interface (BCI) tasks ranging from brain-state monitoring to human-LLM interactions. EEG foundation models are emerging, but evaluation remains fragmented due to heterogeneous datasets and nconsistent task protocols. Here, we introduce OmniEEG-Bench, a unified benchmark and downstream task roadmap for EEG foundation models (FMs). It organizes evaluation of EEG FMs into six task families spanning (i) signal reliability, (ii) biometrics and disease, (iii) consciousness and state, (iv) cognition and emotion, (v) naturalistic stimulus decoding, and (vi) motor and interaction, introducing a new generation of tasks not systematically benchmarked in prior EEG FM work. OmniEEG-Bench standardizes model deployment, task definitions, and metrics through a task-card specification, and unifies 54 EEG datasets with consistent evaluation protocols. We benchmark 10 representative EEG foundation models and report a leaderboard that covers diverse evaluation settings. Both pretraining dataset diversity and model size are significantly associated with better average ranks across datasets, revealing scaling-law behavior in EEG foundation models (Figure 1). These results suggest that scaling EEG foundation models requires not only larger architectures but also broader and more diverse pretraining data. The benchmark code is available at https://github.com/ncclab-sustech/omni-eegbench.git.

Electroencephalography (EEG) foundation models increasingly rely on multi-dataset training and evaluation, yet public EEG datasets still lack a shared task specification layer that can turn heterogeneous recordings into reusable benchmark units. Existing standards organize files, metadata, and provenance, but they do not specify EEG tasks under a common language and rulebook, leaving critical task semantics scattered across papers, code, and manual interpretation. We investigate whether heterogeneous public EEG datasets can be standardized through a structured task specification language paired with a shared rulebook. Our methodology represents each benchmark entry as a task document synchronized with an executable task kernel, with the rulebook defining task fields, evidence requirements, document-kernel alignment, review states, and machine-checkable constraints. Using this methodology, we release a community-reviewed EEG benchmark corpus centered on 53 completed and reviewed entries with 245 task definitions spanning diverse paradigms, and we introduce NeuroDoc and NeuroAudit as the operational support layer for rulebook-guided drafting, upgrading, review, amendment, and release management. We further examine whether the resulting benchmark units can be instantiated in a shared downstream setting across four EEG foundation model backbones, providing execution-based evidence for reusable, auditable, and executable EEG benchmarking infrastructure.

Large language models (LLMs) can make scientific software easier to use. However, a general model does not automatically know which measurements a particular sensor can support, which algorithms are implemented in the current software, or which conclusions are justified by a computed result. These distinctions are especially important for low-channel electroencephalography (EEG), where sparse spatial coverage and variable signal quality make plausible but unsupported interpretations easy to produce. We present NeuraDock Agent, an open-source architecture that separates a deterministic local EEG engine from a hardware-aware language layer. The numerical engine parses recordings, performs quality control, executes reviewed spectral workflows, and writes machine-readable artifacts. The LLM receives only a compact, allowlisted summary and a versioned context pack. The context describes the seven-channel hardware, reviewed workflows, result fields, implementation boundaries, scientific limits, and reference cases. Raw EEG and dense per-sample arrays remain local We evaluate the system at three levels. First, 12 recordings produced identical structured results over ten numerical repetitions, and a complete Rest/Task run produced identical result, report, and figure hashes over three repetitions. Second, request-capture and failure-injection experiments confirmed the tested data boundary and preservation of local artifacts under HTTP, malformed-output, and connection failures. Third, a boundary-awareness benchmark tested 36 ordinary and adversarial questions under four context ablations and two LLMs, yielding 288 outputs.These results support hardware- and implementation-aware grounding as a practical mechanism for calibrating what an EEG agent accepts, qualifies, or refuses; they do not establish clinical validity or a validated absolute cognitive-load index.