Evaluating the structure of cognitive tasks with transfer learning
Open accessAbstract
Electroencephalography (EEG) decoding is a challenging task due to the limited availability of labelled data. While transfer learning is a promising technique to address this challenge, it assumes that transferable data domains and task are known, which is not the case in this setting. This study investigates the transferability of deep learning representations between different EEG decoding tasks. We conduct extensive experiments using state-of-the-art decoding models on two recently released EEG datasets, ERP CORE and M$^3$CV, containing over 140 subjects and 11 distinct cognitive tasks. We measure the transferability of learned representations by pre-training deep neural networks on one task and assessing their ability to decode subsequent tasks. Our experiments demonstrate that, even with linear probing transfer, significant improvements in decoding performance can be obtained, with gains of up to 28% compare with the pure supervised approach. Additionally, we discover evidence that certain decoding paradigms elicit specific and narrow brain activities, while others benefit from pre-training on a broad range of representations. By revealing which tasks transfer well and demonstrating the benefits of transfer learning for EEG decoding, our findings have practical implications for mitigating data scarcity in this setting. The transfer maps generated also provide insights into the hierarchical relations between cognitive tasks, hence enhancing our understanding of how these tasks are connected from a neuroscientific standpoint.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
To our knowledge, this is the first epoch-level LOSO benchmark on ERP CORE.
“To our knowledge, this is the first epoch-level LOSO benchmark on ERP CORE.”
From ERP-XTTN: interpretable prototype-guided cross-attention for cross-subject ERP classification (2026) · cites this paper as [28]
Cross-subject evaluation on ERP CORE has been reported using fold-based splits and time-point-wise LOSO decoding, but neither provides an epoch-level LOSO classification benchmark under deployment-compatible constraints such as causal filtering.
“Cross-subject evaluation on ERP CORE has been reported using fold-based splits [28] and time-point-wise LOSO decoding [29], but neither provides an epoch-level LOSO classification benchmark under deployment-compatible constraints such as causal filtering.”
From ERP-XTTN: interpretable prototype-guided cross-attention for cross-subject ERP classification (2026) · cites this paper as [28]
This consistency across architectures and its agreement with prior cross-subject results on ERP CORE suggests that the ordering primarily reflects ERP signal and paradigm properties rather than classifier-specific behavior.
“This consistency across convolutional and transformer architectures, metric-based prototype learning, and classical spatial filtering, and its agreement with prior cross-subject results on ERP CORE [28], suggests that the ordering primarily reflects ERP signal and paradigm properties rather than classifier-specific behavior.”
From ERP-XTTN: interpretable prototype-guided cross-attention for cross-subject ERP classification (2026) · cites this paper as [28]
Cites
Deep learning with convolutional neural networks for EEG decoding and visualization
Schirrmeister, R. T., Springenberg, J. T., Fiederer, L. D. J., Glasstetter, M., Eggensperger, K., Tangermann, M., Hutter, F., Burgard, W., & Ball, T. (2017) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.23730 · Cited by 3,751 · see citing works
Riemannian geometry applied to BCI classification
Barachant, A., Bonnet, S., Congedo, M., & Jutten, C. (2010) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15995-4_78 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ERP-XTTN: interpretable prototype-guided cross-attention for cross-subject ERP classification
Genevier Wyman, C., & Hirshfield, L. (2026) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ae9f95
“…and transformer architectures, metric-based prototype learning, and classical spatial filtering, and its agreement with prior cross-subject results on ERP CORE [28], suggests that the ordering primarily reflects ERP signal and paradigm properties rather than classifier-specific behavior.”
- Authors
- Aristimunha, B., de Camargo, R. Y., Pinaya, W. H. L., Chevallier, S., Gramfort, A., & Rommel, C.
- Affiliations
- Université Paris-Saclay (FR)
- King's College London (GB)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2308.02408
- OpenAlex
- W4385645200
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-20-CHIA-0016, ANR-20-IADJ-0002)
- Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
- Keywords
- EEG decoding, transfer learning, cognitive tasks, linear probing, pre-training, data scarcity, transfer maps, task hierarchy, deep neural network
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review