aiqbench analysis
This study critically evaluates EEG foundation models beyond standard accuracy metrics, revealing significant trade-offs between noise robustness and channel dropout fragility. The research demonstrates that these models possess sufficient representational capacity when token-level embeddings are preserved, while their attention mechanisms align with established neurophysiological principles. For practitioners, the key takeaway is that future evaluations must explicitly report performance under specific perturbation types rather than relying solely on clean-dataset benchmarks.
Beyond Accuracy: Robustness, Interpretability and Expressiveness of EEG Foundation Models
arXiv:2605.17562v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: EEG foundation models (EEG-FMs) have been evaluated predominantly on clean, in-distribution accuracy, demonstrating modest gains over supervised baselines and weak frozen representations. This study examines whether these conclusions hold beyond clean accuracy by evaluating six EEG-FMs and a supervised baseline across ten datasets along three layers of analysis: (i) Robustness: we apply test-time perturbations including additive noise, random and region-based channel dropout and region-specific noise injection. Our analyses show that no single model dominates all failure modes. The most noise-robust model is among the most fragile under channel dropout and much of the dropout fragility disappears when channels are removed rather than zero-padded. (ii) Interpretability: using attribution methods in EEG-FMs, we show that models broadly concentrate relevance on task-appropriate brain regions consistent with known neurophysiology. (iii) Expressiveness: we demonstrate that the poor head-only performance previously attributed to low-quality pre-trained representations is largely explained by the pooling strategy and that EEG-FMs possess sufficient representational capacity when their token-level embeddings are preserved. Furthermore, with block-wise probing and attention analysis we show that late blocks are repurposed during fine-tuning, while early blocks already hold task-related information. Our results show that conclusions about EEG-FMs depend on evaluation choices and we recommend that future evaluation of EEG-FMs should report robustness per perturbation type, produce attribution maps and examine multiple pooling strategies.
Abstract:EEG foundation models (EEG-FMs) have been evaluated predominantly on clean, in-distribution accuracy, demonstrating modest gains over supervised baselines and weak frozen representations. This study examines whether these conclusions hold beyond clean accuracy by evaluating six EEG-FMs and a supervised baseline across ten datasets along three layers of analysis: (i) Robustness: we apply test-time perturbations including additive noise, random and region-based channel dropout and region-specific noise injection. Our analyses show that no single model dominates all failure modes. The most noise-robust model is among the most fragile under channel dropout and much of the dropout fragility disappears when channels are removed rather than zero-padded. (ii) Interpretability: using attribution methods in EEG-FMs, we show that models broadly concentrate relevance on task-appropriate brain regions consistent with known neurophysiology. (iii) Expressiveness: we demonstrate that the poor head-only performance previously attributed to low-quality pre-trained representations is largely explained by the pooling strategy and that EEG-FMs possess sufficient representational capacity when their token-level embeddings are preserved. Furthermore, with block-wise probing and attention analysis we show that late blocks are repurposed during fine-tuning, while early blocks already hold task-related information. Our results show that conclusions about EEG-FMs depend on evaluation choices and we recommend that future evaluation of EEG-FMs should report robustness per perturbation type, produce attribution maps and examine multiple pooling strategies.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2605.17562 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2605.17562v2 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.17562 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 314 words
Related coverage

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026

PIRAMID: Progress and Plans
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026

Amazon Research Awards recipients announced
Amazon Science · May 27, 2026
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026