Benchmarking study demonstrates subject-specific encoders align EEG representations across motor tasks, indicating low-rank adapters enable lightweight calibration for new users.
Cross-subject EEG decoding promises more training data, but it also exposes neural networks to strong inter-subject distribution shifts. We study whether task supervision and architecture alone can learn subject-aligned representations. We replace a shared EEG encoder with subject-specific encoders followed by a common classifier, and compare this hybrid model with standard EEGNet, AttentionBaseNet, and CTNet baselines with Euclidean Alignment (EA) on three motor-imagery datasets and one motor-execution dataset. EA improves shared encoders by recentering subject covariances, whereas the hybrid encoder reduces reliance on EA: removing EA has little effect on validation-loss dynamics or latent-space organization, and both hybrid variants consistently outperform non-aligned shared baselines. Subject-specific heads increase class distinctiveness and place each subject close to its own latent manifold while improving within-subject class separation. However, on cross-subject classification, subject-specific heads hinder direct parameter transfer to unseen subjects, motivating quantitative head selection and a brief calibration session. Although decoding gains depend on the dataset and backbone, our main findings concern the solely use of architecture pressure promotes representation learning and alignment in a direction complementary to domain adaptation methods such as Euclidean Alignment. A per-subject low-rank adapter of only $$2\,C\,r$$ parameters recovers the full encoder’s accuracy across five backbones and ranks $$r=1$$ to 16, so the per-subject module can be compressed by two to three orders of magnitude.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lopes et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: