aiqbench analysis
This study reveals a critical gap in EEG foundation models where stable internal representations do not necessarily translate to robust downstream performance across varying electrode montages. The findings demonstrate that functional robustness depends jointly on the encoder architecture and its aggregation strategy, specifically showing that anatomically aligned pooling outperforms learned global readouts in maintaining stability. For practitioners deploying these models in clinical or research settings, this underscores the necessity of evaluating both representational and functional axes to ensure reliable generalization beyond training configurations.
Representational and Functional Robustness to Electrode Montages in EEG Foundation Models
arXiv:2609.36288v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: EEG foundation models (EEG-FMs) are intended to generalize across different datasets by learning representations that, ideally, are invariant to dataset-specific EEG configurations such as electrode montages. However, EEG-FMs that accept different montages as input do not guarantee that representations and predictions remain stable across different electrode configurations, especially outside the training setting. In this work, we investigate the effects of different electrode montages through a joint functional and representational analysis of four EEG foundation models selected to span distinct montage-handling designs. We evaluate embeddings on cross-subject resting-state eyes-open/closed and within-subject motor-imagery classification under spatially informed channel reduction. Functional robustness is tested through the generalizability of linear probes across channel counts, while representational robustness is assessed through within-subject similarity and preservation of between-subject geometry. The four models show distinct robustness profiles, and the two axes dissociate: large changes in embedding similarity need not come with comparable probe degradation, and stable embeddings can still lose downstream performance. Comparing two readouts of the same encoder further shows that aggregation, not the encoder alone, determines functional robustness: pooling into anatomically aligned regions degrades less than a learned global readout, despite being montage-invariant by construction. Montage robustness is therefore a joint property of the encoder and its aggregation, and characterizing it requires both a representational and a functional axis. Input compatibility alone is evidence for neither.
Abstract:EEG foundation models (EEG-FMs) are intended to generalize across different datasets by learning representations that, ideally, are invariant to dataset-specific EEG configurations such as electrode montages. However, EEG-FMs that accept different montages as input do not guarantee that representations and predictions remain stable across different electrode configurations, especially outside the training setting. In this work, we investigate the effects of different electrode montages through a joint functional and representational analysis of four EEG foundation models selected to span distinct montage-handling designs. We evaluate embeddings on cross-subject resting-state eyes-open/closed and within-subject motor-imagery classification under spatially informed channel reduction. Functional robustness is tested through the generalizability of linear probes across channel counts, while representational robustness is assessed through within-subject similarity and preservation of between-subject geometry. The four models show distinct robustness profiles, and the two axes dissociate: large changes in embedding similarity need not come with comparable probe degradation, and stable embeddings can still lose downstream performance. Comparing two readouts of the same encoder further shows that aggregation, not the encoder alone, determines functional robustness: pooling into anatomically aligned regions degrades less than a learned global readout, despite being montage-invariant by construction. Montage robustness is therefore a joint property of the encoder and its aggregation, and characterizing it requires both a representational and a functional axis. Input compatibility alone is evidence for neither.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.36288 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.36288v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.36288 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 · 315 words
Related coverage
SingLEM: Single-Channel Large EEG Model
arXiv · Aug 4, 2026
SPERA: Spherical Prior EEG Foundation Model with Geometry- and Frequency-Aware Latent Prediction
arXiv · Oct 9, 2026
CortexBridge: Cortical Alignment of EEG Montages for Foundation Models
arXiv · Oct 2, 2026

PIRAMID: Progress and Plans
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026