ProCA: Progressive Contrastive Alignment for Robust EEG Visual Decoding
Authors: Kanglei Zhou, Chunyan Lan, Dongyang Li, Jun Zhu, Liyuan Wang
Organizations: Department of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · School of Life Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · Department of Computer Science and Technology, Institute for AI, BNRist Center, THBI Lab, Tsinghua-Bosch Joint Center for ML, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Electroencephalogram (EEG) visual decoding aims to recover visual semantics from non-invasive neural time-series signals, for which robust alignment between noisy neural responses and stable semantic representations is key to achieving high-performance decoding. Despite recent advances in contrastive learning, robust EEG decoding remains challenging because existing methods rely on fixed visual or textual anchors whose semantic relations may become misaligned with EEG representations that vary across trials, subjects, and learning stages. Our empirical evidence shows that this instability appears across both standard EEG decoding protocols and more challenging robustness settings, including strict cross-subject transfer and realistic personalized continual adaptation. We provide a formal analysis showing that fixed semantic supervision can bias optimization when EEG-specific relations evolve, and that structure-agnostic perturbations may distort semantically important EEG components. To address these issues, we propose Progressive Contrastive Alignment (ProCA), a unified and model-agnostic framework for adaptive neural-semantic alignment. ProCA progressively refines class-level contrastive supervision from frozen vision-language priors to EEG-aware semantic relations, and introduces structure-consistent interpolation to constrain feature mixing according to channel-wise and temporal importance. Across subject-dependent, subject-independent, strict cross-subject transfer, and continual adaptation settings, ProCA achieves average relative Top-1/Top-5 gains of 7.4%/3.9%, 10.0%/4.6%, 28.1%/17.8%, and 16.8%/11.6%, respectively.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Motivation and method comparison. (a) EEG visual decoding aims to align neural responses with visual semantics, but is challenged by subject variability and non-stationary data distributions. (b) Under realistic cross-subject generalization and continual adaptation settings, the baseline method [ 1 ] exhibits substantial performance degradation, whereas our method consistently improves decoding robustness, especially in continual adaptation. (c) The baseline loss landscape contains dense and sharp contours, reflecting unstable optimization and poor robustness to distribution shifts. (d) Our method produces a smoother and flatter loss landscape with lower loss values, indicating more stable and generalizable optimization. (e) Representative image reconstruction results, including successful cases ( ) and failure cases ( ).
Fig. 2 : Overview of ProCA . ProCA learns EEG representations by progressively aligning them with frozen vision–language embeddings through confusion-guided contrastive supervision (see Sect. IV-B ), while applying structure-consistent interpolation to preserve important channel-wise and temporal EEG components (see Sect. IV-C ).
Method
S01
S02
S03
S04
S05
S06
S07
S08
S09
S10
Average
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
200-Way
EEGNetV4 [ 3 ]
16.0
40.2
15.3
40.8
19.6
48.3
21.2
49.3
15.8
32.6
18.3
44.6
18.3
41.0
29.6
60.2
15.6
44.7
23.5
52.6
19.3
45.4
EEGNetV4 + Ours
16.8
43.3
16.6
44.5
23.2
52.6
22.5
50.6
16.0
35.3
20.5
47.5
18.0
45.5
32.3
64.1
19.3
46.5
24.4
54.0
21.0
48.4
Improvement ( Δ , %)
+5.0
+7.7
+8.5
+9.1
+18.4
+8.9
+6.1
+2.6
+1.3
+8.3
+12.0
+6.5
-1.6
+11.0
+9.1
+6.5
+23.7
+4.0
+3.8
+2.7
+8.8
+6.6
NICE [ 10 ]
21.3
50.9
20.1
42.9
26.2
54.8
27.8
61.3
18.0
42.0
28.1
52.0
22.5
54.3
37.2
68.6
19.1
49.0
29.0
61.3
24.9
54.1
TABLE I : Overall subject-dependent Top-1 (T1) and Top-5 (T5) accuracy (%) comparison on the THINGS-EEG2 dataset under the 200-, 150-, and 100-way zero-shot object recognition settings.
Method
S01
S02
S03
S04
S05
S06
S07
S08
S09
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
Average
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
200-Way
CognitionCapturer [ 13 ]
9.2
30.8
12.8
37.2
10.7
35.8
8.2
25.5
12.2
34.0
12.3
38.2
7.2
22.3
6.2
19.8
5.2
15.7
11.2
35.8
4.0
14.2
8.5
35.2
8.8
23.0
11.3
36.3
5.5
23.3
7.7
20.8
5.0
18.2
11.0
37.8
4.7
16.0
9.2
31.5
8.5
27.6
CognitionCapturer + Ours
10.8
33.7
14.0
39.8
12.3
38.0
9.0
27.3
13.3
35.2
14.3
40.0
7.7
23.7
7.0
21.0
6.7
18.0
12.3
36.3
5.2
15.8
10.2
37.0
10.3
23.8
12.2
37.3
7.2
25.5
8.0
22.3
6.7
20.5
12.7
39.3
5.0
18.2
10.3
32.5
9.8
29.3
Improvement ( Δ , %)
+17.4
+9.4
+9.4
+7.0
+15.0
+6.1
+9.8
+7.1
+9.0
+3.5
+16.3
+4.7
+7.0
+6.3
+12.9
+6.1
+28.8
+14.6
+9.8
+1.4
+30.0
+11.3
+20.0
+5.1
+17.0
+3.5
+8.0
+2.8
+30.9
+9.4
+3.9
+7.2
+34.0
+12.6
+15.5
+4.0
+6.4
+13.8
+12.0
+3.2
+15.3
+6.2
ATMS [ 1 ]
4.5
18.3
12.5
33.7
11.3
31.5
5.5
21.0
8.7
24.2
11.3
28.3
8.7
23.8
5.2
13.8
3.8
11.2
11.5
30.5
4.8
16.7
9.5
31.5
8.0
25.3
16.7
38.8
10.5
24.2
5.2
15.8
5.3
17.0
11.3
30.7
4.5
9.8
13.8
32.7
8.6
23.9
TABLE II : Overall subject-dependent Top-1 (T1) and Top-5 (T5) accuracy (%) comparison on the Alljoined-1.6M dataset under the 200-, 150-, and 100-way settings.
Method
S01
S02
S03
S04
S05
S06
S07
S08
S09
S10
Average
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
200-Way
ATMS [ 1 ]
10.3
26.0
10.8
29.7
8.0
22.3
13.2
29.5
9.2
25.0
10.3
31.2
7.3
23.8
9.3
33.0
8.8
24.8
15.2
35.5
10.3
28.1
ATMS + Ours
12.2
28.0
12.3
31.8
8.8
24.5
14.3
32.2
10.5
26.2
12.2
33.2
8.3
25.7
10.5
35.2
10.2
26.0
16.2
38.5
11.6
30.1
Improvement ( Δ , %)
+17.8
+7.7
+13.8
+7.3
+10.4
+9.7
+8.8
+9.0
+14.5
+4.7
+17.7
+6.4
+13.6
+7.7
+12.5
+6.6
+15.2
+4.7
+6.6
+8.5
+12.7
+7.3
CognitionCapturer [ 13 ]
16.2
42.3
11.7
41.7
8.0
30.8
14.3
44.7
10.5
30.2
10.7
40.5
11.8
43.0
13.0
37.2
10.7
37.8
19.3
53.5
12.6
40.2
TABLE III : Leave-one-subject-out subject-independent generalization comparison on the THINGS-EEG2 dataset under 200-, 150-, and 100-way retrieval settings. Top-1 (T1) and Top-5 (T5) accuracy (%) are reported.
Method
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
Average
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
200-Way
ATMS [ 1 ]
12.27
33.21
8.67
27.92
14.67
39.50
20.08
46.33
11.67
33.50
17.17
45.08
15.83
40.83
26.42
56.75
17.08
39.25
22.92
53.92
16.68
41.63
LwF [ 33 ]
14.80
36.60
10.30
31.70
15.00
41.10
21.40
48.90
12.20
32.70
18.00
45.00
18.30
46.20
28.40
60.90
16.70
41.40
25.60
54.70
18.07
43.92
EWC [ 32 ]
15.10
37.10
12.20
33.80
17.40
40.30
23.80
49.50
12.00
34.50
18.40
46.50
16.80
44.60
27.00
59.40
17.92
40.75
26.50
57.10
18.71
44.36
ER [ 34 ]
13.71
36.42
12.07
35.57
16.50
43.14
22.86
49.21
12.36
33.93
17.93
48.14
18.57
45.57
29.57
65.07
17.64
43.21
25.29
58.07
18.65
45.83
TABLE IV: Continual EEG visual decoding comparison on the THINGS-EEG2 dataset under 200-, 150-, and 100-way retrieval settings. Top-1 (T1) and Top-5 (T5) accuracy (%) are reported.
Method
S01
S02
S03
S04
S05
S06
S07
S08
S09
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
Avg
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
T1
T5
200-Way Setting
Naive
2.33
8.83
3.67
13.17
4.17
13.67
3.17
11.83
6.67
20.67
5.00
19.50
3.50
11.33
0.83
3.17
1.17
4.83
2.67
10.83
2.33
7.50
4.67
17.17
1.67
11.33
8.33
25.17
3.00
13.17
2.00
7.33
2.00
10.33
4.67
21.67
1.33
5.67
3.17
9.67
3.40
13.58
ER [ 34 ]
3.83
12.00
6.83
19.83
4.17
16.00
3.00
11.17
7.33
19.50
6.50
19.67
5.33
13.67
1.17
3.33
1.67
5.00
4.00
17.17
1.67
6.50
5.83
22.17
2.17
9.33
9.17
28.00
4.50
14.67
2.50
8.00
1.33
8.17
7.67
24.17
1.67
3.83
5.17
16.50
4.40
15.06
DER [ 35 ]
3.00
12.33
5.33
19.17
5.83
17.83
1.83
11.67
5.67
19.83
6.33
21.00
4.50
14.50
1.00
3.83
1.33
6.50
3.33
15.83
1.33
8.50
4.67
21.33
1.50
8.33
9.83
28.17
4.00
14.67
2.17
8.67
2.00
11.67
8.33
26.50
1.17
5.50
3.00
14.50
3.98
15.42
ASAL [ 38 ]
2.67
12.83
6.17
18.33
4.50
17.33
4.83
14.83
6.17
18.17
6.83
20.67
3.33
13.33
1.83
5.00
1.17
3.83
4.67
18.33
3.83
8.50
5.17
21.67
2.17
11.83
9.17
29.83
3.83
14.17
2.00
8.50
1.33
6.33
6.00
23.67
0.83
5.00
3.50
16.33
3.77
15.41
TABLE V : Continual EEG visual decoding comparison on the Alljoined-1.6M dataset under 200-, 150-, and 100-way retrieval settings. Top-1 (T1) and Top-5 (T5) accuracy (%) are reported over 20 subjects, with the best result in each column highlighted in bold.
Fig. 3 : Heatmaps of strict cross-subject transfer on the THINGS-EEG2 dataset. 3 to 3 visualize subject-wise transfer results under different metrics and methods, where rows denote source subjects used for training and columns denote unseen target subjects used for evaluation without adaptation. 3 summarizes the average transfer performance across all off-diagonal source–target pairs.
Source
Top-1 Accuracy (%)
Top-5 Accuracy (%)
Baseline
ProCA
Δ
Baseline
ProCA
Δ
S01
3.00±
0.34
3.83±
0.40
+0.83
10.33±
0.59
11.83±
0.57
+1.50
S02
2.83±
0.30
4.06±
0.33
+1.23
10.61±
0.58
13.06±
0.62
+2.45
S03
2.67±
0.22
3.11±
0.32
+0.44
10.67±
0.55
12.44±
0.60
+1.77
S04
3.56±
0.32
4.44±
0.32
+0.88
11.39±
0.55
13.44±
0.61
+2.05
S05
2.72±
0.22
3.50±
0.22
+0.78
9.50±
0.55
10.72±
0.54
+1.22
TABLE VI : Per-source-subject stability analysis under strict cross-subject transfer over three independent runs. Each entry reports the average accuracy over all target subjects except the source subject.
Setting
S01
S02
S03
S04
S05
S06
S07
S08
S09
S10
Avg
Top-1 Accuracy (%)
Baseline
23.0
20.6
27.8
30.9
20.8
28.3
27.3
41.1
29.9
35.6
28.5
Ours
23.8
26.2
33.1
32.4
22.0
29.4
29.0
42.1
30.9
37.1
30.6
Ours w/o PCA
21.8
22.8
30.4
31.4
21.1
29.1
28.3
40.5
30.0
36.3
29.2
Ours w/o Prog. Update
23.5
24.0
31.7
31.3
21.0
28.0
27.5
40.8
28.5
35.5
29.2
Ours w/o SCI
24.6
25.3
32.0
32.0
21.6
28.6
27.4
41.3
29.3
35.8
29.8
TABLE VII: Ablation study of ATMS on the 200-Way setting.
Fig. 4 : Sensitivity analysis of ProCA on the 200-way setting. ProCA shows stable Top-1 and Top-5 accuracy over a broad range of αmax and stage transition epochs, with only modest variations around the optimum. Results on the 150-way and 100-way settings are provided in Appendix Figs. A11 and A10 , respectively.
Fig. 5 : Comparison with Euclidean Alignment (EA) on subject-independent EEG visual decoding. 5 and 5 show that ProCA achieves the best average Top-1 and Top-5 accuracy across 200-, 150-, and 100-way retrieval settings. 5 and 5 further visualize subject-wise gains of ProCA over NeuroBridge and NeuroBridge with EA, respectively, indicating that ProCA provides consistent improvements beyond conventional alignment preprocessing.
Fig. 6 : Loss landscape sharpness comparison across ten subjects and three EEG visual decoding baselines. The left column reports the maximum Hessian eigenvalue λmax , and the right column reports the Hessian trace. Lower values indicate flatter local minima. ProCA generally reduces both measures across baselines, indicating smoother optimization landscapes and improved representation robustness.
Fig. A7 : t-SNE visualization of EEG feature representations. The left panel shows the baseline method, while the right panel shows our proposed ProCA. ProCA produces more compact and better-separated clusters, indicating improved representation discriminability and robustness under challenging cross-subject shifts and semantic ambiguity.
Fig. A8 : Qualitative comparison of image reconstruction results. For each example, we show the ground-truth stimulus (Seen), the reconstruction produced by the baseline method [ 1 ] (Baseline), and the reconstruction obtained by our method (Ours). The results illustrate that the baseline often generates semantically ambiguous or incorrect reconstructions, while our method recovers more discriminative and semantically consistent visual content across a diverse range of visual categories.
Fig. A9 : Representative failure cases of EEG-based image reconstruction. Compared with the baseline, our method generally yields more semantically consistent reconstructions, but still fails for visually complex or ambiguous stimuli, reflecting inherent limitations that remain challenging in real-world EEG reconstruction and deployment settings.
Fig. A10 : Hyperparameter sensitivity analysis on the 100-way setting. Top: Top-1 accuracy; Bottom: Top-5 accuracy. Left: effect of the maximum fusion coefficient αmax with the transition epoch fixed to 25. Right: effect of the stage transition epoch with αmax=0.8 . ProCA exhibits stable performance across a wide range of hyperparameters, with optimal results at αmax=0.8 and a transition epoch around 25.
Fig. A11 : Hyperparameter sensitivity analysis on the 150-way setting. Top: Top-1 accuracy; Bottom: Top-5 accuracy. Left: performance under different values of αmax with the transition epoch fixed to 25. Right: performance under different transition epochs with αmax=0.8 . Consistent with the 100-way setting, ProCA remains robust to hyperparameter variations and achieves its best performance at an intermediate transition stage across both evaluated accuracy metrics and parameter ranges.
Visual decoding from brain signals is a key challenge at the intersection of computer vision and neuroscience, requiring methods that bridge neural representations and computational models of vision. We introduce a tri-modal contrastive framework for EEG-based visual decoding that aligns EEG, visual, and textual representations within a unified latent space. Our approach follows a two-stage design. First, we pre-train an EEG encoder via masked reconstruction on unlabeled trials, learning spatio-temporal regularities that transfer robustly to downstream tasks. Second, we jointly align EEG, image, and LLM-generated textual descriptions through contrastive learning, where text supervision acts as a semantic regularizer that injects linguistic structure into the shared space without overwhelming the primary EEG-image signal. The encoder integrates subject-specific adaptation, graph-attention over channels, and temporal-spatial convolutional embeddings. On the Things-EEG2 200-way zero-shot benchmark, our framework achieves 54.1% Top-1 and 83.4% Top-5 accuracy, substantially exceeding the strongest prior baseline (32.4% / 64.0%), with paired Wilcoxon tests confirming significance (p < 0.01) over all in-subject baselines. We validate generalization on Things-MEG. Analysis reveals that compact embedding geometries (CN-CLIP) outperform much larger backbones, and that decoding aligns with established neurophysiology of visual processing. This work is a critical step towards robust, semantically-grounded visual decoding from non-invasive temporal neural signals. The source code is publicly available in https://github.com/anon-eeg/eeg_image_decoding.
Zexuan Chen, Sichao Liu, Runhao Lu +4
KTH, SWeden · University of Cambridge, UK · EPFL, Switzerland +2
EEG visual decoding remains difficult because scalp recordings are noisy, spatially coarse, and variable across trials and subjects. Most systems align each trial with a dense image embedding, although that embedding mixes semantic content with instance-specific texture, pose, and background. This target can demand details absent from EEG and provides no explicit account of the visual factors supporting a prediction. We propose ProtoEEG, a prototype-mediated framework that reformulates EEG--image alignment as soft composition over a shared learnable visual codebook. A trainable EEG encoder and a frozen visual teacher produce assignment distributions over the same K=64 prototypes. Their weighted reconstructions form a structured representation for retrieval and image generation. Prototype contrast supplies the main cross-modal training signal, distribution alignment coordinates codebook use across modalities, an instance anchor preserves fine-grained discrimination, and diversity regularization prevents redundant prototypes. The shared assignment profile also makes the learned bottleneck directly testable through prototype retention, random selection, and identity shuffling. Across five seeds, ProtoEEG reaches 64.0% Top-1 and 91.5% Top-5 on THINGS-EEG2 200-way retrieval. After retraining on EEG-ImageNet, it obtains 44.8% Top-1 and 73.8% Top-5 in 80-way retrieval. ProtoEEG also ranks first on all seven reconstruction metrics. Removing prototype contrast lowers Top-1 by 56.9 percentage points, while shuffling prototype identities reduces it to 0.5%. Prototype analyses further show distributed assignments and broad codebook use rather than one-prototype routing. These results support structured alignment targets as a practical alternative to increasing encoder or teacher capacity alone.
Zero-shot visual decoding from electroencephalography (EEG) aims to infer visual semantics from non-invasive neural recordings, but remains challenging due to the low signal-to-noise ratio, non-stationarity, and limited spatial resolution of EEG. Existing EEG-vision alignment methods often rely on holistic EEG embeddings, which can obscure the complementary temporal, spectral, and spatial structure underlying visual perception. We introduce a unified multiview EEG representation learning framework for aligning brain responses with visual semantic embeddings. Our method builds an EEG encoder that jointly models three complementary views: input-conditioned state-space temporal dynamics, learnable wavelet-based spectral decomposition for sample-adaptive frequency modeling, and attention-modulated graph learning for structured electrode interactions. The resulting multiview EEG embeddings are fused and aligned with pretrained visual representations in a shared semantic space using contrastive learning with EEG-specific regularization, enabling 200-way zero-shot visual classification. Experiments on THINGS-EEG benchmark show that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance, with 54.8% Top-1 and 85.6% Top-5 accuracy in the within-subject setting and 15.3% Top-1 and 45.4% Top-5 accuracy in the cross-subject setting. We further present the first systematic cross-session EEG-image decoding evaluation, achieving 40.8% Top-1 and 78.0% Top-5 accuracy. These results suggest that explicitly modeling multiview neural structure improves both semantic alignment and generalization in EEG-based visual decoding.
Salini Yadav, Taveena Lotey, Pravendra Singh +1
Department of CSE IIT Roorkee, India · Department of CSE IIT (ISM) Dhanbad, India