BrainBind: Bridging Synchronized EEG and fMRI through Long-Form Naturalistic Video Representations
Authors: Shixiao Wang, Rining Wu, Jian K. Liu
Organizations: School of Computer Science, Center for Human Brain Health, University of Birmingham, UK · School of Computer Science, University of Leeds, UK
Real-world vision is dynamic and scene-rich, while EEG and fMRI resolve it at complementary temporal and spatial scales. Most neural decoding systems, however, align one modality in isolation and mostly against static images or short clips. We study the synchronized case: EEG and fMRI are recorded during the same long-form naturalistic viewing, giving a shared stimulus but also recurring narrative context and many semantically similar candidates. We present BrainBind, a framework that maps synchronized EEG and fMRI into frozen long-form video embedding spaces and treats those spaces as common visual-semantic references, not literal neural codes. On CineBrain, a five-seed Recall@K 2 x 4 matrix across two video anchors and four system configurations shows distinct retrieval profiles. With Omni, fMRI organizes the full candidate list most strongly (MRR = 23.82, nDCG@10 = 25.31), while Joint-Dual gives the highest mean label-aware R@1 (13.52%) with a distinct rank-wide profile. The complementary episode-disjoint evaluation quantifies the contribution of repeated stimulus identity and narrative context to the random split. Across these experiments, proxy choice and system configuration produce distinct top-rank and rank-wide retrieval profiles within the present synchronized dataset. The code is available at https://github.com/Forainest789/Brainbind.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of BrainBind. Synchronized EEG and fMRI responses are mapped into a frozen long-form video proxy space, which provides a shared visual-semantic geometry for comparing modality-specific and fused neural–video retrieval. The dashed reconstruction path denotes the optional L1 reconstruction loss Lrec used only in designated diagnostic configurations; the core systems use contrastive-only training. The rightmost branch is retrieval-conditioned text-to-video visualization rather than direct neural reconstruction.
Experiment family
Backbone
Total parameters
EEG / fMRI / Both, Omni
Transformer [ 36 ]
49,907,712
EEG / fMRI / Both, ImageBind
Transformer [ 36 ]
47,809,536
Joint-Dual, Omni
2 × S4AE (structured SSM) [ 15 ]
293,835,134
Joint-Dual, ImageBind
2 × S4AE (structured SSM) [ 15 ]
191,595,902
EEG S4AE-matched, Omni
S4AE (structured SSM) [ 15 ]
118,541,167
fMRI S4AE-matched, Omni
S4AE (structured SSM) [ 15 ]
118,541,167
Table 1: Model parameter counts for the reported configurations.
Experiment
Runs
Avg. epochs
Speed (it/s)
Duration (min/run)
Best val mean R@1 (%)
EEG–Omni Transformer
5
50.0
0.067
103.50
5.17
fMRI–Omni Transformer
5
50.0
0.082
83.14
22.33
Both–Omni Transformer
5
50.0
0.063
111.30
20.69
Joint-Dual–Omni 2 × S4AE
5
50.0
0.012
585.22
16.54
EEG–Omni S4AE-matched
5
24.4
0.041
82.44
1.10
fMRI–Omni S4AE-matched
5
46.8
0.027
357.98
16.76
Table 2: Training duration and throughput for runs with recorded timing.
Anchor
Input
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@20
Omni
EEG
1.51 ± 0.13
6.09 ± 0.90
11.26 ± 1.55
20.16 ± 1.82
Omni
fMRI
9.81 ± 0.16
27.70 ± 0.64
42.71 ± 0.31
59.85 ± 0.53
Omni
Both
8.41 ± 0.30
25.08 ± 0.40
39.34 ± 0.41
56.04 ± 0.69
Omni
J-Dual
10.28 ± 0.24
17.47 ± 0.54
24.20 ± 1.17
33.35 ± 1.78
ImageBind
EEG
0.65 ± 0.05
2.61 ± 0.11
4.77 ± 0.13
9.23 ± 0.26
ImageBind
fMRI
3.90 ± 0.42
12.90 ± 0.82
20.97 ± 1.03
32.68 ± 0.86
Table 3: Label-aware CineBrain bidirectional retrieval matrix. Values are percentages, reported as mean ± std across five seeds. Both directions use the same evaluation pair pool with query and gallery roles reversed. EEG and fMRI use single-modality Transformers; Both uses cross-attention fusion with a Dual-Transformer; J-Dual uses mean fusion with two S4AE branches. Best R@1 values within each anchor and direction are bold.
Anchor
Input
Fusion
Backbone
R@1
MRR
mAP
nDCG@10
Omni
EEG
single
Transformer
1.91 ± 0.28
6.60 ± 0.58
6.03 ± 0.49
6.06 ± 0.75
Omni
fMRI
single
Transformer
12.71 ± 0.24
23.82 ± 0.29
21.37 ± 0.19
25.31 ± 0.20
Omni
Both
cross-attn
Dual-Transformer
11.23 ± 0.30
21.91 ± 0.18
19.61 ± 0.11
23.22 ± 0.20
Omni
J-Dual
mean
2 × S4AE
13.52 ± 0.11
18.69 ± 0.35
15.09 ± 0.39
16.52 ± 0.51
ImageBind
EEG
single
Transformer
0.61 ± 0.05
2.83 ± 0.06 †
2.71 ± 0.06 †
2.20 ± 0.06 †
ImageBind
fMRI
single
Transformer
6.12 ± 0.52
13.27 ± 0.67
11.41 ± 0.53
12.99 ± 0.72
Table 4: Ranking-aware evaluation for the controlled retrieval matrix. Mean R@1, MRR, mAP, and nDCG@10 are averaged across the s2v and v2s directions. † EEG–ImageBind ranking metrics are averaged over four seeds because one seed lacks ranking-metric outputs.
Comparison
Metric
Δ pp
p
Interpretation
Both vs. fMRI (Omni)
mean R@1
-1.48
0.0012
System-level difference
Both vs. fMRI (Omni)
nDCG@10
-2.09
3.3×10−5
Rank-structure difference
J-Dual vs. fMRI (Omni)
mean R@1
+0.81
0.0008
Top-rank difference
J-Dual vs. fMRI (Omni)
MRR
-5.13
8.5×10−7
Rank-organization difference
J-Dual vs. fMRI (Omni)
mAP
-6.28
9.7×10−7
Candidate-space difference
J-Dual vs. fMRI (Omni)
nDCG@10
-8.79
1.2×10−6
Rank-structure difference
Table 5: Paired seed-level comparisons. Positive Δ indicates the first configuration is higher. The Joint-Dual rows quantify the difference between precise matching and rank-wide organization; the anchor row quantifies the consistent Omni advantage.
Figure 2: Embedding-geometry diagnostics for Omni-aligned brain representations. The top block compares retrieval-colored 2D projections (t-SNE and UMAP) for the four Omni-aligned brain embeddings on a 3,000-sample diagnostic subset. These subset metrics are distinct from the full-pool, multi-seed aggregates in Tables 3 and 4 . The bottom block reports rank-space and high-dimensional neighborhood statistics: Top-K retrieval curve, median first-positive rank, 20-NN cosine distance, density Gini coefficient, and Top-5 retrieval within the densest 1% neighborhoods. Projections are qualitative; metric panels are computed in retrieval rank space or the original high-dimensional embedding space. Higher Gini values indicate stronger local density non-uniformity rather than a quality ranking.
Figure 3: Cross-anchor geometry of the two frozen video proxies. ImageBind concentrates more variance in fewer principal components; Omni has broader spectral support and lower redundancy. Independently fitted PCA followed by in-sample CCA characterizes their linear correspondence.
Objective
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@20
MRR
mAP
InfoNCE, contrastive-only
0.080 ± 0.025
0.345 ± 0.047
0.532 ± 0.078
0.977 ± 0.105
0.393 ± 0.028
0.343 ± 0.009
SupCon, contrastive-only
0.111 ± 0.038
0.448 ± 0.008
0.782 ± 0.047
1.258 ± 0.088
0.477 ± 0.023
0.376 ± 0.030
InfoNCE, reconstruction-assisted
0.080 ± 0.025
0.316 ± 0.074
0.689 ± 0.103
1.175 ± 0.171
0.435 ± 0.057
0.391 ± 0.020
SupCon, reconstruction-assisted
0.136 ± 0.072
0.399 ± 0.098
0.648 ± 0.167
1.052 ± 0.161
0.464 ± 0.081
0.375 ± 0.028
Table 6: EEG-only S4AE loss ablation on the episode-disjoint split (percentages; mean ± std over three seeds).
τ
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@20
MRR
mAP
0.01
0.087 ± 0.009
0.370 ± 0.027
0.777 ± 0.062
1.350 ± 0.124
0.465 ± 0.007
0.387 ± 0.024
0.05
0.180 ± 0.058
0.486 ± 0.034
0.936 ± 0.085
1.674 ± 0.115
0.614 ± 0.025
0.486 ± 0.036
0.10
0.098 ± 0.035
0.322 ± 0.066
0.746 ± 0.103
1.394 ± 0.180
0.465 ± 0.090
0.370 ± 0.066
0.20
0.123 ± 0.041
0.396 ± 0.085
0.671 ± 0.027
1.168 ± 0.120
0.471 ± 0.003
0.367 ± 0.063
Table 7: EEG SupCon reconstruction-assisted Transformer temperature sweep on the episode-disjoint split (percentages; mean ± std over three seeds).
Setting
Split / pool
s2v@1
v2s@1
Mean R@1
MRR
nDCG@10
Label-aware theoretical chance
6480
0.026
0.026
0.026
0.222
0.081
Random brain, Omni
6480
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.149
0.052
Shuffled video, Omni
6480
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.125
0.045
Random brain, ImageBind
6480
0.015
0.000
0.008
0.151
0.052
Shuffled video, ImageBind
6480
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.129
0.054
Table 8: Retrieval controls (percentages). Theoretical chance and random-brain rows are label-aware; shuffled-video rows use one-to-one row correspondence after permuting the video gallery.
Model
Subject
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@20
MRR
mAP
fMRI–Omni
sub-0001
5.234 ± 5.239
16.501 ± 13.148
24.103 ± 15.745
31.956 ± 14.967
11.083 ± 8.145
11.085 ± 8.146
fMRI–Omni
sub-0002
0.050 ± 0.037
0.197 ± 0.053
0.367 ± 0.093
0.768 ± 0.157
0.288 ± 0.061
0.288 ± 0.061
J-Dual–Omni
sub-0001
24.150 ± 1.944
42.934 ± 1.379
47.909 ± 0.725
49.792 ± 0.241
32.203 ± 1.652
32.203 ± 1.653
J-Dual–Omni
sub-0002
0.069 ± 0.012
0.274 ± 0.059
0.505 ± 0.120
0.860 ± 0.194
0.320 ± 0.019
0.320 ± 0.019
Table 9: Selective three-seed held-out-training checks (percentages; mean ± std over seeds). Twenty percent of each held-out subject’s samples are used for checkpoint selection; the remaining samples form the test gallery.
Anchor
Input
Probe
R@1
s2v@1
v2s@1
s2v@5
v2s@5
s2v@10
v2s@10
ImageBind
EEG
Linear
0.55
0.50
0.60
1.15
1.90
2.05
3.80
Omni
EEG
Linear
1.05
0.95
1.15
3.20
3.65
6.20
5.60
ImageBind
EEG
MLP
0.80
0.80
0.80
2.45
2.30
3.00
4.00
Omni
EEG
MLP
1.23
1.15
1.30
4.05
4.55
6.80
7.35
ImageBind
fMRI
MLP
18.58
17.20
19.95
27.75
35.45
34.30
43.15
Omni
fMRI
MLP
22.85
20.60
25.10
47.25
52.30
58.40
64.95
Table 10: Low-capacity probe results on a 2,000-candidate CineBrain random-split gallery (percentages). Linear and MLP probes use shallow projections into the frozen video proxy space and the same label-aware bidirectional retrieval protocol as BrainBind.
Model
n
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@20
Chance floor
–
0.069
0.347
0.693
1.381
EEG
3
0.075 ± 0.029
0.363 ± 0.109
0.579 ± 0.182
1.224 ± 0.323
fMRI
3
0.129 ± 0.073
0.417 ± 0.250
0.908 ± 0.244
1.641 ± 0.373
Both
3
0.126 ± 0.093
0.453 ± 0.200
0.893 ± 0.462
1.402 ± 0.585
J-Dual
3
0.216 ± 0.051
0.615 ± 0.083
1.026 ± 0.109
1.988 ± 0.054
Table 11: Episode-disjoint label-aware retrieval (percentages; mean ± std over three coupled model/split-seed runs). No season–episode group appears in more than one split; the chance row reflects the repeated-positive structure.
Anchor / input
Direction
n
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@20
Omni / J-Dual
s2v
3
10.08 ± 0.32
17.44 ± 0.51
22.96 ± 1.13
30.92 ± 1.25
Omni / J-Dual
v2s
3
18.68 ± 0.42
27.14 ± 0.81
35.06 ± 1.47
44.98 ± 2.04
ImageBind / EEG
s2v
5
0.09 ± 0.06
0.30 ± 0.09
0.51 ± 0.10
0.95 ± 0.18
ImageBind / EEG
v2s
5
0.20 ± 0.03
0.82 ± 0.07
1.49 ± 0.11
2.69 ± 0.30
Table 12: Targeted S4AE configurations on CineBrain bidirectional retrieval. Values are percentages; n is the number of seeds. The reduced-width J-Dual configuration uses mean fusion and contrastive-only training. The single-modality EEG–ImageBind configuration jointly optimizes contrastive alignment and reconstruction. Widths, objectives, anchors, and seed sets differ, so these are configuration diagnostics rather than a factorial backbone ablation.
Anchor
Input
Fusion
Configuration
n
Mean R@1
MRR
mAP
nDCG@10
Omni
J-Dual
mean
reduced S4AE, contrastive
3
14.38 ± 0.35
19.14 ± 0.56
15.28 ± 0.52
16.89 ± 0.66
ImageBind
EEG
single
S4AE + reconstruction
5
0.15 ± 0.03
0.59 ± 0.05
0.50 ± 0.04
0.39 ± 0.04
Table 13: Ranking-aware metrics for the targeted S4AE configurations. Values are percentages, mean ± std over n seeds.
Control
s2v@1
s2v@5
s2v@10
s2v@20
v2s@1
v2s@5
v2s@10
v2s@20
One-to-one theoretical chance
0.015
0.077
0.154
0.309
0.015
0.077
0.154
0.309
Label-aware theoretical chance
0.026
0.131
0.262
0.523
0.026
0.131
0.262
0.523
Label-aware random brain
0.015
0.046
0.077
0.123
0.015
0.093
0.139
0.401
Shuffled video features
0.000
0.062
0.108
0.262
0.000
0.046
0.123
0.355
Table 14: Omni chance and shuffled-feature controls. Label-aware rows use same- stim_label positives; the shuffled-video row reports the one-to-one shuffled-feature control.
Control
s2v@1
s2v@5
s2v@10
s2v@20
v2s@1
v2s@5
v2s@10
v2s@20
One-to-one theoretical chance
0.015
0.077
0.154
0.309
0.015
0.077
0.154
0.309
Label-aware theoretical chance
0.026
0.131
0.262
0.523
0.026
0.131
0.262
0.523
Label-aware random brain
0.015
0.062
0.139
0.278
0.000
0.077
0.108
0.231
Shuffled video features
0.000
0.031
0.077
0.293
0.000
0.108
0.231
0.309
Table 15: ImageBind chance and shuffled-feature controls. Label-aware rows use same- stim_label positives; the shuffled-video row reports the one-to-one shuffled-feature control.
Anchor
Control
Mean R@1
Mean MRR
Mean mAP
Mean nDCG@10
Omni
Label-aware theoretical chance
0.026
0.222
0.155
0.081
Omni
Label-aware random brain
0.015
0.149
0.148
0.052
Omni
Shuffled video features
0.000
0.125
0.125
0.045
ImageBind
Label-aware theoretical chance
0.026
0.222
0.155
0.081
ImageBind
Label-aware random brain
0.008
0.151
0.154
0.052
ImageBind
Shuffled video features
0.000
0.129
0.129
0.054
Table 16: Ranking-aware chance and control metrics. The label-aware theoretical chance accounts for multiple same-label positives per query. The shuffled-video rows use the one-to-one shuffled-feature control.
Input
Probe
Mean R@1
s2v@1
v2s@1
s2v@5
v2s@5
s2v@10
v2s@10
EEG
Linear
0.32
0.29
0.35
1.02
1.68
1.87
2.87
EEG
MLP
0.40
0.29
0.51
1.36
2.28
2.27
3.60
Table 17: Held-out test results for completed EEG–Omni probe runs. Values are percentages. The probes and full EEG–Omni encoder use the same 6,480-candidate test gallery and label-aware retrieval protocol.
Figure 4: Qualitative retrieval-conditioned visualization via the Omni pipeline. The fMRI embedding retrieves text in Omni space, and the fixed Wan2.1-T2V-1.3B generator [ 37 ] produces the displayed frames. The panel shows three of ten retained outputs from the 16-query generation pass. It visualizes a neural → proxy → text → video pathway rather than direct neural reconstruction.
Study / family
Signal
Stimulus / supervision
Output target
Scale interpretation
MindEye2 [ 32 ]
fMRI
NSD static natural images
Image retrieval and diffusion reconstruction
Strong low-data static-image reference; the target is an image embedding/generator, not video dynamics.
MinD-Video [ 7 ]
fMRI
Dynamic visual stimuli
Video reconstruction
Direct fMRI-to-video generation reference; it does not study synchronized EEG–fMRI proxy retrieval.
NeuroClips [ 14 ]
fMRI
Natural video clips
Smooth fMRI-to-video reconstruction
High-fidelity video-generation reference optimized for perceptual synthesis, not full-split ranking.
Brain Netflix [ 9 ]
fMRI
Scaled natural video viewing
Video reconstruction from brain activity
Closest large-scale video-generation reference; it focuses on fMRI synthesis and data scaling.
Animate Your Thoughts / Mind-Animator [ 29 ]
fMRI
Dynamic natural vision
Decoupled video reconstruction
Recent fMRI-to-video generation reference; its target is reconstruction, not shared EEG–fMRI retrieval geometry.
BrainBind (ours)
EEG + fMRI
CineBrain long-form naturalistic video
Bidirectional retrieval, proxy diagnostics, and retrieval-conditioned visualization
Studies whether synchronized EEG and fMRI can be organized in one frozen long-form video reference geometry.
Table 18: Video-generation and static-image external references as scale context. These studies are not direct leaderboard comparisons: they differ in stimulus regime, signal modality, and output target. They define the landscape against which BrainBind’s distinct contribution is positioned.
Model
Held-out subject
Seed
Pairs
Mean R@1
R@5
R@10
R@20
MRR
mAP
fMRI–Omni
sub-0001
42
4321
11.247
31.486
41.865
48.554
20.368
20.372
fMRI–Omni
sub-0001
123
4321
2.800
11.120
18.584
27.829
7.737
7.738
fMRI–Omni
sub-0001
456
4321
1.655
6.897
11.861
19.486
5.145
5.145
fMRI–Omni
sub-0002
42
4320
0.035
0.185
0.359
0.671
0.270
0.270
fMRI–Omni
sub-0002
123
4320
0.093
0.255
0.463
0.949
0.356
0.356
fMRI–Omni
sub-0002
456
4320
0.023
0.150
0.278
0.683
0.237
0.237
Table 19: Selective held-out-training checks (percentages). Mean R@1, R@5, R@10, R@20, MRR, and mAP average the neural-to-video and video-to-neural directions.
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 experience from non-invasive brain activity is central to neuroscience and brain-computer interfaces. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) offers fine spatial detail, but its slow hemodynamics and burdensome acquisition limit temporally resolved decoding. Electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) provide millisecond resolution, making image retrieval compelling: identify the viewed image from neural responses and a fixed candidate bank. Contrastive alignment to pretrained visual representations enables zero-shot retrieval from EEG and MEG, but most systems collapse heterogeneous visual supervision into a single embedding before ranking. This early consolidation imposes one similarity geometry on every candidate order and removes encoder-specific disagreements from the final ranking. We propose CORTIVA, a candidate-score fusion method that retains this complementary evidence. Three decoding routes are aligned to heterogeneous visual targets, score the same indexed candidates independently, and combine only their temperature-scaled score vectors before ranking. On the 200-way THINGS-EEG2 benchmark, CORTIVA reaches 73.5% Top-1 and 95.3% Top-5 across ten participants, exceeding the strongest reported baseline by 10.3 and 5.4 percentage points. With a modality-specific neural encoder, the same fusion principle reaches 42.4% Top-1 on THINGS-MEG. Matched route-removal retraining and four weight controls show that the gain comes from combining complementary route scores and persists under uniform weighting, without depending on a specialized weighting rule. Analyses in an independent DINOv2 space recover the same local error-neighborhood enrichment and posterior neural-visual correspondence. These results support candidate-score fusion as a simple, testable alternative to embedding-level consolidation for neural image retrieval.
Junhan Wang, Kani Chen
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR, China
EEG-based visual decoding provides a non-invasive pathway for interpreting visual semantics. However, existing methods often overlook the perceptual asymmetry between foreground and background in complex scenes, leading to background interference and semantic misalignment. EEG signals also exhibit rapid temporal dynamics and nonstationary spatial patterns, making it difficult to capture the time-varying brain connectivity associated with focal visual attention. To address these limitations, we propose FSDBN, a unified framework for robust EEG-visual decoding. FSDBN introduces Semantic-Consistent Saliency Alignment to separate semantically relevant foreground regions from background noise under joint saliency and semantic constraints. It further employs Semantic-Prior Dynamic Gating Foreground Fusion to adaptively regulate the contributions of foreground and background features. In parallel, EEG signals are modeled as adaptive spatiotemporal brain networks whose functional connectivity dynamically reorganizes to capture neural responses to salient foregrounds. Experiments on zero-shot brain-to-image retrieval demonstrate that FSDBN achieves 69.0 percent top-1 accuracy and 92.2 percent top-5 accuracy, outperforming previous state-of-the-art methods. Code is available at https://github.com/LiuYiheng1/FSDBN-EEG.
Yiheng Liu, Chuhang Zheng, Peiliang Gong +3
College of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China · The International Joint Institute of Tianjin University, Fuzhou, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China