Decoding dynamic visual content from EEG has advanced rapidly for visual perception, yet it remains unclear which aspects of neural representations are preserved when people internally replay dynamic scenes. We introduce PAIR, an EEG benchmark collected from 20 participants using an interleaved, clip-wise paradigm that pairs naturalistic video viewing with immediate visual recall. This design enables a comparison between externally driven perception and internally generated recall for the same stimulus content within a fixed trial sequence. We benchmark multiple decoding models on hierarchical semantic classification at both fine-grained and coarse-grained levels, meta-feature decoding tasks covering motion, color, object number, face, and human presence, and a state-decoding task that discriminates perception from recall. Within-subject validation results show numerically similar performance for several model--task combinations, alongside higher perception accuracy in two coarse-grained comparisons after multiple-comparison correction. In contrast, perception and recall are highly separable at the state level under the present validation protocol. State accuracy remains high after alpha-band ablation, although this does not exclude ocular or other task-related contributions.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Model structure of GCN-LSTM.
Fig. 2: The hierarchical structure of the dataset, consisting of 4 major categories and 20 subcategories.
Fig. 3: The experimental paradigm. Each block contains 50 trials with a prepare-watch-recall structure.
Model
20-c
4-c
Fast/slow
Color
Number
Face
Human
Uniform chance
5
25
50
20
33.3
50
50
Raw EEG Signals
ShallowNet
10.50±1.67
38.27±3.63
60.90±3.50
27.60±2.66
45.50±3.72
62.40±3.05
59.93±3.27
DeepNet
11.10±1.23
38.87±3.39
62.20±2.45
29.73±2.76
46.43±2.77
62.93±2.92
61.03±4.15
EEGNet
10.47±1.42
37.53±3.41
61.53±3.19
29.40±3.42
45.93±3.31
63.00±3.01
60.27±3.50
Conformer
10.20±1.48
37.17±3.48
62.47±4.33
29.60±3.40
49.13±2.75
65.20±3.73
62.33±3.18
Table 1: Perception validation accuracy (%; mean ± SD across 20 participants after averaging three sessions each). Neural-network scores are best validation accuracies; SVM uses its fixed configuration. Highest means within each feature group are in bold .
Model
20-c
4-c
Fast/slow
Color
Number
Face
Human
Uniform chance
5
25
50
20
33.3
50
50
Raw EEG Signals (Recall)
ShallowNet
9.40±1.67
33.97±3.23
61.03±3.27
27.70±2.57
44.70±3.28
62.83±3.16
60.20±3.73
DeepNet
9.80±2.13
34.47±2.81
62.43±4.15
28.97±2.64
46.20±3.71
63.40±3.32
60.93±2.69
EEGNet
9.63±1.58
34.10±3.30
59.43±3.32
28.13±2.97
45.67±2.64
62.10±4.05
60.40±2.66
Conformer
10.20±1.69
35.83±2.31
61.63±2.89
29.30±2.09
47.83±3.11
64.63±3.09
61.53±3.25
Table 2: Recall validation accuracy (%; mean ± SD across 20 participants). Aggregation and score selection follow Table 1 . Highest means within each feature group are in bold .
Fig. 4: Perception (blue) and recall (orange) across semantic and meta-feature tasks. Bars show mean best validation accuracy; error bars show SD across 20 participants after averaging sessions. Similar bars do not establish statistical equivalence.
Feature
Method
Full Band
w/o Alpha
Δ
–
Chance Level
50.00
50.00
0.00
Raw EEG
DeepNet
84.77±7.87
79.23±10.22
5.53
SVM
88.10±4.80
86.73±5.11
1.37
EEGNet
94.88±3.39
92.53±3.84
2.35
Conformer
95.07±3.48
93.88±3.69
1.18
GCN-LSTM
95.52±3.33
95.57±1.76
-0.05
Table 3: State validation accuracy (%; mean ± SD across 20 participants), with full-band inputs and alpha ablation. Score selection follows Table 1 . Δ is the full-minus-ablated mean difference in percentage points, computed before rounding.
Fig. 5: Mean sensor-level validation accuracy for the ‘Human’ meta-feature during perception and recall, using a shared single-channel Conformer and a common color scale. Values are averaged across sessions and participants; no spatial significance is implied.
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
Decoding visual information from electroencephalography (EEG) signals remains a fundamental challenge in brain-computer interfaces and medical rehabilitation. Existing EEG visual decoding methods mainly focus on learning a single global EEG embedding for cross-modal alignment, but they largely overlook the staged and hierarchical characteristics of human visual processing. To address this limitation, we propose a neuroscience-inspired staged representation learning framework that reformulates EEG visual decoding as a stage-specific representation decomposition problem. The proposed framework organizes EEG representation learning into three complementary phases: low-level visual representation learning, high-level semantic representation learning, and integrative information fusion. To strengthen semantic modeling, we further introduce a multimodal dual-level semantic learning mechanism that separates coarse label-level semantics from fine image-level visual-semantic information. In addition, semantic latent channels are introduced as computational representation channels generated from observed visual EEG signals, expanding the channel-level semantic representation space for structured semantic abstraction and cross-modal alignment. Extensive experiments on the THINGS-EEG benchmark demonstrate that the proposed method achieves superior performance under subject-dependent zero-shot evaluation and improved exact retrieval under subject-independent zero-shot evaluation. Additional analyses, including layer-wise retrieval, temporal accumulation, expanded multi-image retrieval, and ablation studies, further support the effectiveness of staged decomposition and structured semantic modeling. These results suggest that explicitly modeling staged perceptual, semantic, and integrative representations provides an effective neuroscience-inspired framework for EEG-based visual decoding.
Xiang Gao, Hui Tian, Yanming Zhu +2
School of Information and Communication Technology, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, Southport, 4222, QLD, Australia
Reconstructing visual stimuli from electroencephalography (EEG) is difficult because scalp measurements have high temporal but limited spatial resolution, and paired EEG-image datasets remain small relative to modern generative-model training corpora. We present a reproducible single-subject baseline on THINGS-EEG2 that first tests the more defensible question of whether EEG can retrieve the viewed stimulus in a visual embedding space. A compact temporal-spatial convolutional encoder maps repetition-averaged EEG (63 by 250) to provided 512-dimensional ViT-B/32 image features. Model selection uses a concept-disjoint validation split, and final evaluation uses the official 200-image, 200-concept test gallery. Across three training seeds, the model obtains 12.83 +/- 0.58%, 39.17 +/- 1.76%, and 58.00 +/- 1.73% image recall at 1, 5, and 10 (mean +/- sample standard deviation), compared with analytical chance levels of 0.5%, 2.5%, and 5.0%. A session-balanced ablation shows that averaging more test repetitions generally improves ranking. Applying the Subject 01 model to the other nine subjects without adaptation causes a sharp performance drop, exposing subject specificity. We further report exploratory stress tests of direct conditional generators trained without external visual weights: single-subject and ten-subject variants produce noise-dominated outputs, with early validation improvements reversing after one to four epochs. Finally, we distinguish direct reconstruction from semantic rendering with a pretrained diffusion prior. The results support above-chance coarse semantic decoding under a closed-set, repetition-averaged protocol, but do not support faithful recovery of stimulus pixels.