Matched-Input Estimates Differ in Sign Across Architectures: Auditing EEG Foundation Models on Motor Imagery

Abstract

Pretrained EEG foundation models are increasingly proposed as general-purpose encoders for brain-computer interfaces, yet recent benchmarks disagree about when their representations transfer to downstream tasks. We audit LaBraM and CBraMod on motor imagery under a validation-locked protocol in which preprocessing, architecture, optimization, freeze depth, checkpoint, temperature, and method selection are determined using training-session data only. On four-class BCI Competition IV-2a, every supervised comparator evaluated here outperforms every foundation-model configuration, including validation-selected fine-tuning. We then examine a key confound: foundation models and task-specific decoders are normally evaluated using different input pipelines. Retraining three supervised architectures on the broadband arrays consumed by the foundation models produces matched-input accuracy differences of opposite sign across architectures: broadband input improves ATCNet by 0.078 accuracy while reducing EEG Conformer accuracy by 0.088. None of the three individual matched-input terms is significant after multiple-comparison correction at n = 9, so we treat the sign variation descriptively rather than as a formal architecture-by-pipeline interaction. These observed sign differences suggest that a single comparator may not provide an architecture-invariant decomposition of a pretrained-versus-supervised performance gap. The four-class deficit also does not reproduce uniformly across motor-imagery datasets: on two-class BNCI2014-004 we cannot detect the same separation between fine-tuned CBraMod and the supervised comparators. Finally, validation-fitted temperature scaling returns foundation-model calibration error to the supervised range despite substantially lower four-class accuracy.

Abstract: arXiv descriptive metadata (CC0). Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. This service was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, arXiv.