Core-matrix protocol · Transfer to a new person

Arithmetic & rest on EEGMAT

Everything that produced the scores below — cohort, split, electrodes, window, what each method was allowed to learn, and what guessing would score — as the released protocol file states it. Compare scores within this protocol only.

The protocol at a glance

Task
Serial subtraction versus resting EEG
Evaluation
Transfer to a new person
Dataset
EEGMAT
People
36
Data
2,160 epochs · 5 participant-disjoint folds
Input
19 channels · 2-second windows
Chance level
50.0%
Metrics
Balanced accuracy (primary) · Macro F1 (secondary)

Results

Every method run under this protocol, with the score the released results file holds. Compare down this table only: other protocols differ in cohort, electrodes, window or chance level.

Spectral ridge
56.8% (54.6%–58.9%)
LaBraM
64.6% (60.5%–68.6%)
CBraMod
62.3% (58.1%–66.5%)
EEGNet
67.6% (62.8%–72.5%)
Balanced accuracy, every method under this protocol. Dot: the estimate; line: descriptive 95% interval; dashed line: chance level.
MethodTraining modeBalanced accuracyMacro F1ChannelsPeopleScoring time
Spectral ridgeClassical methodSupervised fit56.8%54.6%–58.9%0.558Mean across held-out participants19360.6 s
LaBraMFoundation modelFrozen encoder + ridge head64.6%60.5%–68.6%0.620Mean across held-out participants19362.1 s
CBraModFoundation modelFrozen encoder + ridge head62.3%58.1%–66.5%0.602Mean across held-out participants19366.1 s
EEGNetCompact modelScratch · 20 epochs67.6%62.8%–72.5%Single seed — the highest of the seeds run (see Stability)0.637Mean across held-out participants1936117.7 s

Scoring time includes fitting and prediction, may include accelerator waiting, and excludes data preparation. It is configuration-specific, not a hardware benchmark.

Not run under this protocol: CSP+LDA, ShallowFBCSPNet, Deep4Net, Standard CCA, Temporal ridge. A method missing here was not run on this protocol — that is not a failure.

Read with care

Thirty nonoverlapping 2-second windows from each of two conditions per person. Published signals were already cleaned with ICA; task performance groups are not evaluated.

The protocol, step by step

  1. 5 participant-disjoint folds. All recordings from a person stay together. Each person contributes to the held-out predictions once.
  2. First 60 s of each recording; 30 contiguous nonoverlapping 2 s windows; exclude A2-A1 ear-difference and ECG; EDF physical volts converted to microvolts; subtract each channel's window mean; no rejection, filtering, resampling, or learned preprocessing.
  3. One fixed seed (20260919); no early stopping or test-based tuning. EEGNet trains for 20 epochs per fold. Frozen encoders use training-only standardized ridge heads (alpha 100).
  4. Labels: pre-task-rest, mental-arithmetic.
  5. Uniform-guessing reference: 50.00%. Scores weight participants equally. Intervals describe participant variation; cross-validation training sets overlap.
  6. The benchmark detects condition (rest versus serial subtraction), not the good/bad count-quality participant grouping.
  7. Only the first documented 60 seconds is retained even though EDF containers are longer.
  8. The source README reports prior ICA artifact removal, so these are not untouched acquisition signals.
  9. Open Data Commons Attribution License v1.0 applies; retain PhysioNet attribution.
  10. EEGNet three-seed mean 67.52%; sample SD 0.14 percentage points; range 67.36–67.64%. Main table retains the original fixed seed; this is not a confidence interval.

Stability

EEGNet three-seed mean 67.52%; sample SD 0.14 percentage points; range 67.36–67.64%. Main table retains the original fixed seed; this is not a confidence interval.

Seeds run for EEGNet: 67.64% · 67.55% · 67.36%; mean 67.52%

Same participants, folds, preprocessing and 20-epoch budget. Three seeds measure initialization variability, not population uncertainty. Main table retains its preselected seed; no best-seed selection.

Pretraining exposure

Unknown unless explicitly documented; no unseen-pretraining claim.

Notes on the methods

Model terms

Source and licence

EEGMAT

Credit Igor Zyma, Ivan Seleznov, Anton Popov, Mariia Chernykh, Oleksii Shpenkov · EEG During Mental Arithmetic Tasks 1.0.0, PhysioNet, doi:10.13026/C2JQ1P. Study: Zyma et al. (2019), doi:10.3390/data4010014. PhysioNet platform: Pollard et al. (2026), doi:10.1038/s44360-026-00096-z.

Licence Open Data Commons Attribution License 1.0 ↗

Dataset record ↗ · Every result on this dataset →

BCI Report does not redistribute any recording. These are aggregate measurements computed by BCI Report under the licence above; the data belong to the people credited.

Permitted scope Personal noncommercial research; aggregate results only

Privacy Only cohort aggregates are published here: no recording, no participant identifier, no per-person score. The full review note is in the protocol JSON ↓

Public-data register note Attribution license and study-specific approval/consent are documented; eligibility assumes aggregate-only output and exclusion of subject-info fields.

Rights reviewed · against physionet.org ↗ · www.mdpi.com ↗ · opendatacommons.org ↗

Reproducibility record

Protocol id
parallel-fixed-subject-folds-v1/physionet-eegmat-1.0.0
Dataset release
PhysioNet EEG During Mental Arithmetic Tasks 1.0.0 · 1.0.0
Hardware
Apple M5 / MPS
Scoring stage sum
126.5 s · may include accelerator waiting
Audit record SHA-256
2d0e4cec78c8d6e5bfc9f5390ba161f4308759e02feffbb8645d6983d9093292
Summary SHA-256
ab607e749da1eedcf88441c5b6fd0db55e2ebae0bbd91d6d18e508605eef625b
Protocol SHA-256
5d53ccbd5a00763908162f0b700c0a3236e0d4f9d43b08e42ee31a2ef01aefbf

Downloads

Other protocols

All protocols → · The core matrix on the home page → · All datasets → · All methods →