Separating personal from population gains when calibrating EEG foundation models for new users
TL;DR
Personal adaptation of three frozen EEG foundation models was evaluated in 235 held-out subjects 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.
Abstract
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.
