cs.LGOct 7, 2026

Similar Predictive Fit but Different Latent Dynamics: Characterizing Learned Dynamical Structure in Personalized Models of Brain Disorders

Authors: Rita Huan-Ting Peng, Nhat Bui

Organizations: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA · Carle Foundation Hospital, Urbana, IL, USA

Abstract

As AI models move toward clinical decision-making and personalized treatment, understanding \emph{what} a model learns is important beyond predictive accuracy alone. We investigate whether personalized latent dynamics reveal clinically associated differences even when predictive fit is similar. A lightweight CNN--Transformer EEG foundation model pretrained on the Temple University EEG Corpus (TUEG) extracts segment-level representations. Using the Temple University Epilepsy Corpus (TUEP), representations are mapped to a shared latent-state space, and sparse multinomial logistic transition distributions (mLTD) are fit independently to each subject to obtain personalized transition-dependency graphs WnW_n. Analyses include n=198n{=}198 subjects (99 epilepsy / 99 non-epilepsy). At k=4k{=}4, epilepsy subjects exhibit substantially denser learned dependency structure (p=1.1×10−7p{=}1.1\times10^{-7}), with the same pattern at k=6k{=}6 (19.90 vs. 13.46; p=5.2×10−5p{=}5.2\times10^{-5}). Graph-derived features provide moderate group discrimination under 5-fold subject-wise cross-validation (AUROC 0.68 at k=4k{=}4; 0.65 at k=6k{=}6). In contrast, held-out log-likelihood is nearly identical between groups at k=4k{=}4 (−0.992-0.992 vs. −0.991-0.991; p=0.95p{=}0.95), with similarly matched next-state prediction (AUROC 0.855 vs. 0.861; p=0.54p{=}0.54). Thus, similar predictive fit does not imply similar learned dynamics: groups can be comparably predictable while differing substantially in the internal dynamical structure learned by personalized models. This distinction motivates evaluating learned structure alongside predictive performance in personalized clinical models.

Explore similar work

Sep 29, 2026cs.NE

NeuroDyn-EEG: An Interpretable Pre-trained Model for EEG Based on Neural Dynamics

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.
Jul 31, 2026eess.SP

EEG-JEPA: Structured Latent Prediction for EEG Foundation Models

Electroencephalography (EEG) foundation models aim to learn reusable representations from large-scale unlabeled recordings. A common pretraining strategy is masked waveform reconstruction, but applying supervision directly to noisy EEG may encourage models to recover predictable background activity, acquisition effects, and artifacts rather than neural structure that transfers across tasks. This raises a central question: what should an EEG foundation model predict to learn transferable representations? We introduce EEG-JEPA a structured latent-prediction framework for EEG foundation modeling. Rather than reconstructing masked voltage samples, a masked context encoder and predictor infer contextual latent states produced by an exponential-moving-average target encoder that observes the complete input. EEG-JEPA organizes target design along three complementary dimensions: target content specifies what representation is predicted, target support specifies where prediction occurs over structured electrode--time regions through Neurotopology-Aware Multi-scale Electrode-Temporal Masking (N-MET), and target depth specifies at which encoder layers supervision is applied. Together, these designs shift EEG pretraining from recovering missing measurements to inferring latent states from structured electrode--time context. We evaluate EEG-JEPA through controlled objective comparisons, frozen multitask transfer, and full fine-tuning. Under the same backbone, pretraining corpus, and training duration, EEG-JEPA improves the 14-task frozen macro balanced accuracy from 40.49% to 50.42% over CBraMod-style masked waveform reconstruction. Multi-source continuation further raises this result to 52.94%, the highest average among the EEG foundation models evaluated on EEG-FM-Bench. Under protocol-matched full fine-tuning, EEG-JEPA also improves the nine-task average balanced accuracy from 68.98% to 70.65%.
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.