NeuroDyn-EEG: An Interpretable Pre-trained Model for EEG Based on Neural Dynamics
Authors: Yi Cui, Tong Zhao, Jiaxin Lei, Chuyi Yang, Yifan Cui, Ling Zhang, Yuxiang Yan, Bo Hong
Organizations: Gnosis Neurodynamics Co. Ltd, Room 202, West Area, Building North 1, No. 9 Yard, Shengmingyuan Road, Changping District, Beijing, China · School of Biomedical Engineering, Tsinghua Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · University of California, Davis, department of psychology · Beijing Key Laboratory of Mental Disorders, National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders and National Center for Mental Disorders, Beijing Anding Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China · Advanced Innovation Center for Human Brain Protection, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
Clinical scalp electroencephalography (EEG) offers a noninvasive window into neural dynamics of neuropsychiatric disorders. However, discriminative deep models often lack anatomically indexed physiological interpretability. We propose NeuroDyn-EEG, a pretraining framework integrating generative priors from neural dynamics. It couples an extended Jansen-Rit neural mass model, leadfield-based source projection, and simulation-based parameter inversion. Trained on synthetic parameter-EEG pairs within physiological ranges, NeuroDyn-EEG estimates 11 regional parameter families across 90 AAL regions plus one global parameter from standard 19-channel EEG, using only ~2.43M trainable parameters. We evaluate the framework across three levels. First, controlled simulations demonstrate robust parameter recovery under diverse noise conditions, while real resting-state EEG evaluations confirm spectral and phase consistency in an inverse-forward closed loop. Second, on four clinical benchmarks (AD65, PD31, Figshare MDD, and TUAB), NeuroDyn-EEG achieves competitive classification performance, securing the highest BACC, AUROC, and AUCPR on PD31 and MDD, and highest BACC on AD65. Third, post hoc regional analyses reveal disease-specific alterations: local synaptic connectivity C_1 involves the most altered regions in AD65, whereas the firing threshold theta ranks first in MDD, offering testable mechanistic hypotheses. Overall, NeuroDyn-EEG maps scalp EEG to anatomically indexed dynamical parameters, bridging representation learning and mechanistic neurophysiology. Code: https://github.com/Gnosis-Neurodynamics/NeuroDyn-EEG.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The three-stage modeling and validation framework of NeuroDyn-EEG. (1) Whole-brain dynamical simulation : Constructing a 90-node coupled dual-dynamic neural mass model based on the generalized Jansen model, generating a diverse synthetic “parameter–scalp EEG” dataset through physiologically constrained sampling and an intracranial source-to-scalp forward model. (2) Simulation-based multi-branch spatial-spectral parameter inversion model : Training a multi-branch spatial-spectral inverse network using synthetic scalp EEG-neural dynamic parameter pairs to extract interpretable, region-level parameters from scalp EEG. (3) Systematic evaluation : Quantifying model performance via parameter recovery, surrogate noise stress-testing, and closed-loop reconstruction; subsequently comparing downstream classification across real clinical cohorts; and finally examining whether inferred parameters exhibit anatomically localizable case–control differences.
Figure 2: NeuroDyn-EEG parameter inversion network architecture. The framework adopts a multi-branch spatial-spectral design: The scalp temporal branch extracts long-range temporal features via multi-scale convolutions and dilated residual blocks; the source-space branch projects scalp EEG onto 90 source nodes via the leadfield pseudoinverse; and the spectral branch encodes log-magnitude spectral features. Node self-attention and scalp–source cross-attention integrate these representations, and parameter-specific heads produce regional estimates across 90 AAL brain regions together with one global delay coordinate under the specified output constraints.
Figure 3: Simulation parameter recovery and real EEG closed-loop evaluation. ( a ) Sample-level predicted vs. true values across 12 targets on independent synthetic test data; dashed line indicates ideal identity ( y=x ), with Pearson r annotated. ( b ) Heatmap of region-wise Pearson r across AAL cortical parcels. ( c ) Parameter-wise Pearson r curves under four surrogate noise types (white noise, pink noise, EMG, EOG) across SNR 30 to −5 dB, referencing clean baseline performance. ( d ) Boxplots of multi-band Phase-Locking Value (PLV) in real resting-state EEG closed-loop reconstruction ( δ , θ , α bands). ( e ) Topographic maps of channel-wise reconstruction fidelity on real EEG ( n=369 ); Top: 1–40 Hz log PSD Pearson r ; Middle: absolute α -peak frequency error (Hz); Bottom: 1/f aperiodic slope error. Black dots indicate standard 10–20 electrode positions.
Method
Model Size
AD65
PD31
BACC
AUCROC
AUCPR
BACC
AUCROC
AUCPR
LaBraM
5.8M
0.775 ± 0.083
0.890 ± 0.085
0.915 ± 0.065
0.567 ± 0.091
0.722 ± 0.111
0.721 ± 0.162
CBraMod
4.9M
0.526 ± 0.031
0.681 ± 0.104
0.769 ± 0.046
0.533 ± 0.075
0.678 ± 0.127
0.709 ± 0.143
BrainOmni tiny
8.4M
0.767 ± 0.140
0.853 ± 0.121
0.896 ± 0.089
0.533 ± 0.075
0.756 ± 0.214
0.778 ± 0.227
BrainOmni base
33M
0.713 ± 0.116
0.871 ± 0.103
0.917 ± 0.065
0.600 ± 0.149
0.683 ± 0.239
0.722 ± 0.213
VAEEG
0.46M
0.798 ± 0.136
0.938 ± 0.071
0.954 ± 0.050
0.717 ± 0.139
0.789 ± 0.159
0.751 ± 0.191
Table 1: Quantitative performance and model efficiency comparison. (a) Neurodegenerative disease datasets; (b) General clinical and psychiatric datasets. Size denotes the number of trainable parameters. Bold and underline denote best and second-best results, respectively.
Figure 4: Region-wise case–control structure of inferred JR parameters in AD65 and Figshare MDD. ( a ) AD65 : Bar plot shows the number of AAL regions satisfying Benjamini–Hochberg corrected qBH<0.001 for each JR parameter family; right surface map displays the significance distribution for the top-ranked parameter C1 across AAL-90 space. ( b ) Figshare MDD : Following the same protocol, the top-ranked parameter is θ . Colorbars represent binary significance masks (1 = region significant at qBH<0.001 ; 0 = non-significant). The global scalar delay_scale is excluded from regional counts.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Description
Range
Unit
Distribution
τe1
Excitatory time constant, slow branch
[10,35]
ms
HTN
τi1
Inhibitory time constant, slow branch
[10,35]
ms
Conditional uniform
τe2
Excitatory time constant, fast branch
[3.9,8.4]
ms
HTN
τi2
Inhibitory time constant, fast branch
[7.3,16.8]
ms
Conditional uniform
C1
Local coupling factor: pyramidal to excitatory interneurons
[0.5,1.5]
1
HTN
C2
Local coupling factor: excitatory interneurons to pyramidal cells
[0.4,1.2]
1
HTN
Appendix
Supplementary Table S1: Sampled dynamical parameters for forward simulation. Bounds specify the simulation prior.
Parameter
Description
Value or rule
Unit
He1/Hi1
Excitatory/inhibitory synaptic gains, slow branch
3.25/22
mV
He2
Excitatory synaptic gain, fast branch
32.5/1000τe2
mV
Hi2
Inhibitory synaptic gain, fast branch
440/1000τi2
mV
Cavg
Reference local connectivity scale
135
1
μ/σp
Mean/standard deviation of the Gaussian background input
220/22
s−1
σref
Reference amplitude for interregional coupling normalization
22
s−1
Appendix
Supplementary Table S2: Fixed simulator constants, gain constraints, and structural settings.
Target
τe1
τi1
τe2
τi2
θ
β
rmax
C1
C2
C3
C4
wk
1.2
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
5.0
5.0
20.0
20.0
Appendix
Supplementary Table S3: Loss weights wk for multi-task MAE training ( k indexes physical targets).
Parameter family
αsubj
αnode
Notes
τe1,τe2
1/4
1/12
Smaller within-sample dispersion
θ,β,rmax
1/4
1/8
Intermediate within-sample dispersion
C1,C2,C3,C4
1/4
1/6
Larger within-sample dispersion
τi1,τi2
—
—
Conditional on the matching excitatory time constant; Equation (S1.4)
δs ( delay_scale )
—
—
One uniform draw per sample
Appendix
Supplementary Table S4: Hierarchical sampling hyperparameters entering Equations (S1.2)–(S1.3). For a bound width Δk=hk−ℓk , the parent-Gaussian standard deviations are σsubj(k)=αsubjΔk and σnode(k)=αnodeΔk . The choice αsubj=1/4 makes the width of the parent Gaussian’s ±2σ interval equal to Δk . Truncation determines the resulting distribution moments.
Module
Layer / operation
Parameters
Output size
Input and preprocessing
Scalp EEG segment
C=19 , fs=256 Hz, T=1280 (5 s)
B×19×1280
Temporal and spatial demeaning
Channel-wise temporal mean removal; sample-wise cross-channel mean removal
B×19×1280
Peak-to-peak amplitude screening
Retained range: [3,100]μ V
B×19×1280
Scalp temporal branch
Four parallel Conv1D paths
Cin=19 , Cout=32 per path; k∈{3,5,7,9} ; s=2 ; same padding; no bias
Supplementary Table S5: Layer-wise specification of the NeuroDyn-EEG multi-branch spatial–spectral inversion network. B denotes the batch size. Tensor dimensions follow the channel-first convention.
Figure S1: Parameter-wise R2 robustness results under four surrogate noise types. The 12 subpanels correspond to the 12 model output targets; each subpanel presents R2 values for white noise, pink noise, EMG-like noise, and EOG-like noise across SNR 30 to −5 dB, referencing the clean baseline result for that parameter. R2=1 indicates perfect agreement; R2=0 indicates that prediction mean squared error equals the ground-truth mean baseline error; R2<0 indicates residual sum of squares exceeds that baseline error. All curves are computed independently per parameter.
Figure S2: Parameter-wise MAE robustness results under four surrogate noise types. Subpanels, noise types, SNR levels, and clean baseline references are identical to Supplementary Figure S1 . Lower MAE indicates smaller absolute prediction error; the vertical axis preserves the original physical scale of each parameter. Therefore, curves should be used to compare different noise types and SNR conditions within each parameter panel, rather than comparing recovery difficulty across distinct parameters based on absolute MAE magnitude.
ROI
AAL Brain Region
t
dof
p
qBH
∣d∣
2
R Precentral Gyrus
5.23
62.2
2.1×10−6
4.3×10−5
1.26
3
L Superior Frontal Gyrus
4.69
63.0
1.5×10−5
1.7×10−4
1.14
5
L Superior Orbital Gyrus
5.74
61.4
3.1×10−7
1.2×10−5
1.42
6
R Superior Orbital Gyrus
5.11
62.6
3.2×10−6
5.3×10−5
1.24
9
L Middle Orbital Gyrus
5.56
62.4
5.9×10−7
2.0×10−5
1.34
11
L IFG (p. Opercularis)
4.36
46.8
7.0×10−5
5.1×10−4
1.14
Appendix
Supplementary Table S6: Region-wise Welch’s t -tests for the C1 parameter family in the AD65 cohort (significant regions with qBH<0.001 ; nAD=36 , ncontrol=29 ).
ROI
AAL Brain Region
t
dof
p
qBH
∣d∣
3
L Superior Frontal Gyrus
-3.18
47.6
4.8×10−6
1.0×10−4
0.87
5
L Superior Orbital Gyrus
-6.27
44.7
1.3×10−7
5.2×10−6
1.76
13
L IFG (p. Triangularis)
-4.78
50.0
1.6×10−5
2.6×10−4
1.32
15
L IFG (p. Orbitalis)
-5.90
50.0
3.1×10−7
9.7×10−6
1.63
19
L Posterior-Medial Frontal
-5.96
45.6
3.4×10−7
1.0×10−5
1.67
23
L Superior Medial Gyrus
-5.78
42.5
7.8×10−7
2.1×10−5
1.63
Appendix
Supplementary Table S7: Region-wise Welch’s t -tests for the θ parameter family in the Figshare MDD cohort (significant regions with qBH<0.001 ; nMDD=35 , ncontrol=30 ).
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 (EEG) records mixtures of brain-source activity. Even with a known anatomical forward model, experiments that excite only part of the source-state space leave the dynamics unidentified, and repetition cannot resolve the ambiguity. We show that unknown local mechanism changes can supply the missing information. We consider linear dynamics among fixed anatomical sources with known source-state initialization patterns. Changing one source's update rule for one transition leaves a rank-one, source-specific signature in subsequent EEG: subtracting matched baseline responses isolates it, and the forward model identifies the source and calibrates its response history. Combining these histories with initialization responses recovers source interactions without baseline reachability and without first identifying the intervention coefficients. We establish sufficient recovery conditions, a direct estimator, and a noise-sensitivity bound conditional on correct source labels. Simulated EEG on anatomy derived from magnetic resonance imaging confirms the information gain: with baseline excitation confined to four of twelve source coordinates, eight unknown changes recover all dynamics in 32/32 systems, whereas baseline realization, baseline regression through an invertible forward model, and changes that leave the tested states unexposed all fail, and explicitly constructed alternative dynamics reproduce every baseline mean. Where baseline information suffices, direct reconstruction is also more reliable than a matched-information spectral estimator. Nonlocal changes and forward-model error limit accuracy even when source labels are correct.
Ayana Mussabayeva, Jiaqi Sun, Anuar Aimoldin +2
Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence (MBZUAI), Abu Dhabi, UAE · Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Electroencephalography (EEG) is recorded continuously over hours, with relevant dynamics spanning timescales from milliseconds to hours. Most EEG foundation models nevertheless process fixed windows independently, limiting their ability to capture information encoded in long-timescale dynamics. State-space architectures enable persistent recurrent processing, but long-range information remains implicitly compressed in recurrent states. We present NeurDuo-EEG, a causal EEG foundation model with channel-resolved persistent memory. NeurDuo-EEG introduces multi-timescale memory management with learned consolidation and selective retrieval, enabling persistent modelling of continuous EEG with fixed-size state. It is pre-trained on 3,955 hours of EEG from 17 public datasets using multichannel autoregressive prediction of discrete spectral codes. Across three short-window and two long-sequence downstream tasks, NeurDuo-EEG achieves the best performance on four of five benchmarks, including all three short-window tasks and seizure detection, where AUC-PR improves from 0.285 to 0.471 over the strongest non-NeurDuo baseline. NeurDuo-EEG also remains competitive on sleep staging and supports efficient streaming inference, with nearly constant per-chunk latency as the available history grows to one hour. Notably, the Small variant achieves this with only 4.7M backbone parameters. These results demonstrate the value of persistent, multi-timescale modelling for both long-sequence and short-window EEG analysis. Our code is available at https://github.com/YifaNNW/NeurDuo-EEG.
Yifan Wang, Haiping Liu, Yang Cui +13
University of Manchester · ETH Zürich · Shanghai Jiao Tong University +5