aiqbench analysis
This study demonstrates that simply increasing model capacity does not guarantee successful adaptation of EEG foundation models to pathological stroke data, highlighting the critical need for domain-specific fine-tuning techniques like LoRA. While mean accuracy improves significantly with adaptation, substantial individual variability persists, suggesting that robust clinical deployment requires subject-level assessment rather than relying solely on cohort averages. These findings underscore the challenges of transferring healthy-cohort benchmarks to real-world rehabilitation scenarios where physiological discriminability varies widely between patients.
Lightweight Adaptation of EEG Foundation Models for Stroke Motor Imagery Decoding: Domain Shift and Subject-Level Robustness
arXiv:2609.00282v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Motor imagery (MI) electroencephalography (EEG) decoding could support post-stroke rehabilitation, but models developed on healthy cohorts may not transfer reliably to pathological EEG. We evaluated whether Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) can efficiently adapt three pretrained EEG foundation models (i.e., LaBraM-base, REVE-base, and REVE-large) for binary left- versus right-hand MI decoding. Frozen-backbone head-only baselines and LoRA adaptation were evaluated using subject-wise five-fold cross-validation on the PhysioNet EEG Motor Movement/Imagery Dataset and a binary subset of the UET175 dataset comprising 30 stroke participants. On EEGMMIDB, LoRA increased accuracy to 0.822 for LaBraM-base and 0.957 for REVE-base. On UET175, all head-only models performed near chance. With LoRA, LaBraM-base remained near chance (0.499$\pm$0.009), whereas REVE-base reached 0.847$\pm$0.194 and outperformed REVE-large (0.806$\pm$0.178), indicating that increased model capacity alone did not improve stroke-domain adaptation. The strongest stroke configuration, REVE-base LoRA, was further evaluated using within-cohort leave-one-subject-out cross-validation (LOOCV), showing 0.952 mean accuracy, but subject-wise accuracy ranged from 0.586 to 1.000, revealing a small low-performing tail. Zero-shot transfer from EEGMMIDB to UET175 remained near chance (0.464$\pm$0.072). These findings show that healthy-benchmark performance does not ensure transfer to stroke EEG. Translation of EEG foundation models to pseudo-online or real-time rehabilitation BCIs should therefore include target-domain adaptation and subject-level assessment of temporal informativeness, spatial sensitivity, and physiological discriminability.
Abstract:Motor imagery (MI) electroencephalography (EEG) decoding could support post-stroke rehabilitation, but models developed on healthy cohorts may not transfer reliably to pathological EEG. We evaluated whether Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) can efficiently adapt three pretrained EEG foundation models (i.e., LaBraM-base, REVE-base, and REVE-large) for binary left- versus right-hand MI decoding. Frozen-backbone head-only baselines and LoRA adaptation were evaluated using subject-wise five-fold cross-validation on the PhysioNet EEG Motor Movement/Imagery Dataset and a binary subset of the UET175 dataset comprising 30 stroke participants. On EEGMMIDB, LoRA increased accuracy to 0.822 for LaBraM-base and 0.957 for REVE-base. On UET175, all head-only models performed near chance. With LoRA, LaBraM-base remained near chance (0.499$\pm$0.009), whereas REVE-base reached 0.847$\pm$0.194 and outperformed REVE-large (0.806$\pm$0.178), indicating that increased model capacity alone did not improve stroke-domain adaptation. The strongest stroke configuration, REVE-base LoRA, was further evaluated using within-cohort leave-one-subject-out cross-validation (LOOCV), showing 0.952 mean accuracy, but subject-wise accuracy ranged from 0.586 to 1.000, revealing a small low-performing tail. Zero-shot transfer from EEGMMIDB to UET175 remained near chance (0.464$\pm$0.072). These findings show that healthy-benchmark performance does not ensure transfer to stroke EEG. Translation of EEG foundation models to pseudo-online or real-time rehabilitation BCIs should therefore include target-domain adaptation and subject-level assessment of temporal informativeness, spatial sensitivity, and physiological discriminability.
Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science (cs.CE); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.00282 [cs.CE]
(or arXiv:2609.00282v1 [cs.CE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.00282 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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 · 308 words
Related coverage
Brain foundation model-guided source-selective domain adaptation for cross-subject EEG decoding
arXiv · Oct 9, 2026
Backpropagation-Free Test-Time Adaptation for Lightweight EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interfaces
arXiv · Jul 24, 2026
SwitchBraidNet: Quantisation-Aware Lightweight Architecture for Hybrid Brain-Computer Interface
arXiv · Jul 28, 2026
Matched-Input Estimates Differ in Sign Across Architectures: Auditing EEG Foundation Models on Motor Imagery
arXiv · Sep 22, 2026