Separating personal from population gains when calibrating EEG foundation models for new users

Frozen EEG encoders proliferate; per-model fine-tune defaults do not scale. We present Nimbus Personalizer: one contract encode to Bayesian head to BrainState (optional affine mid-tier) that sits on heterogeneous frozen trunks without a new personalization stack per architecture. Thesis (systems): the contribution is the trunk-agnostic API - not LDA-on-embeddings as an ML novelty - so OEMs integrate once and swap trunks. Evidence: the same surface runs on five classical trunks EEGNet, Shallow, Deep, Conformer, ATCNet x four MI datasets (18 cells) and on a foundation encoder (REVE) under the same Personalizer. Where embedding capacity exists, the head is a cheap default mid-point versus warm-start fine-tune or PEFT, costing orders of magnitude less adaptation wall time while recovering much of the fine-tune accuracy gain; calibration-only-when-clean holds in 12/18 cells. Head gains are supporting evidence that the API is useful where capacity exists. Subject-level confidence intervals identify the clearest dataset and span zero elsewhere. All results are exploratory (subject-level bootstrap, no confirmatory tests); the decision logic for when to escalate adaptation is addressed in our companion work on the control layer.

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.

Scaling EEG foundation models requires pooling data across heterogeneous electrode montages, a prerequisite both for larger pretraining corpora and for downstream deployment. We present the first systematic comparison of four channel adaptation methods (Conv1d projection, spherical spline interpolation (SSI), source-space decomposition, and Riemannian re-centering) across five pretrained EEG foundation models (5M--157M parameters), five downstream tasks, and two training regimes with 10--15 random seeds each. We find that rigid-montage models (BENDR, Neuro-GPT) require external adaptation, while flexible models (EEGPT, CBraMod) match or exceed it natively when fine-tuned but benefit from external methods under frozen-encoder deployment. A probe-SFT asymmetry exists: external adaptation can cause severe negative transfer during fine-tuning of flexible models. The optimal method is architecture-dependent (Conv1d for BENDR, SSI/Riemannian for Neuro-GPT, source-space decomposition for depression detection), and 5M-parameter CBraMod outperforms models up to 31$\times$ larger on 4/5 datasets, consistent with independent findings that compact EEG-specific architectures can match larger models.