Track genomics, neuroscience and molecular biology.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the true personalization gains of EEG foundation models by disentangling individual adaptation from improvements in the population model. Through extensive evaluation on held-out subjects across three motor-imagery datasets, personal adapters consistently outperformed both the population model and adapters exchanged between subjects. The findings highlight that the magnitude of personalization benefits is inversely related to the population model's training budget, suggesting that current population models may not have reached a performance plateau.
Personal adaptation of EEG foundation models yields substantial gains over population models, but only if personalization is rigorously evaluated against both population and exchanged adapters.
Foundation models are increasingly adapted to individual users, but an apparent personalization gain can simply reflect a stronger population model. This distinction matters for brain-computer interfaces, where every new user must be calibrated. We evaluated personal adaptation of three frozen EEG foundation models (CBraMod, REVE and LaBraM) in 235 held-out subjects from three motor-imagery datasets, comparing each subject's adapter with the population model and with adapters fitted to other subjects. Using all first-half session labels, personal adapters improved mean balanced accuracy over the population model by 1.5-5.4 percentage points and outperformed exchanged adapters by 2.3-7.3 points in all nine model-dataset combinations. The size of this benefit depended on population training: with four times the original budget, median gains remained positive (1.0-2.0 points) but were smaller for every model, and no population model reached a confirmed plateau. Acquiring the benefit cheaply was unreliable: few-label calibration was consistently non-negative on only one dataset, and in CBraMod neither unlabeled context nor meta-learned initialization outperformed matched controls. Personalization should therefore be evaluated against both a population reference and exchanged parameters, across population-training budgets.