Core-matrix protocol · Transfer to a new person

Semantic target ERP on TMNRED / ds005383

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
Reading · target versus nontarget events
Evaluation
Transfer to a new person
Dataset
TMNRED / ds005383
People
30
Data
3,600 epochs · 5 participant-disjoint folds
Input
30 channels · 1-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
51.0% (49.6%–52.5%)
Temporal ridge
56.3% (54.4%–58.4%)
LaBraM
53.2% (51.3%–54.9%)
CBraMod
55.8% (54.2%–57.4%)
EEGNet
61.4% (58.9%–64.0%)
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 fit51.0%49.6%–52.5%Interval reaches chance level0.506Mean across held-out participants30300.9 s
Temporal ridgeClassical methodSupervised fit56.3%54.4%–58.4%0.559Mean across held-out participants30301.2 s
LaBraMFoundation modelFrozen encoder + ridge head53.2%51.3%–54.9%0.519Mean across held-out participants30303.4 s
CBraModFoundation modelFrozen encoder + ridge head55.8%54.2%–57.4%0.554Mean across held-out participants303023.5 s
EEGNetCompact modelScratch · 20 epochs61.4%58.9%–64.0%0.606Mean across held-out participants303083.4 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. A method missing here was not run on this protocol — that is not a failure.

Read with care

Balanced event subset with collapsed semantic categories. Natural class prevalence is not preserved. Third-party reading passages and participant metadata are excluded from this website.

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. units: microvolts; epoch: [event onset, onset + 1.0 s); filtering: none added
  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: nontarget, target.
  5. Uniform-guessing reference: 50.00%. Scores weight participants equally. Intervals describe participant variation; cross-validation training sets overlap.
  6. Research subset with fixed deterministic sampling capped at 60 epochs per participant/class.
  7. Balancing to 60 per class changes the source target/nontarget prevalence.
  8. Events use numbered target/nontarget variants; the benchmark collapses the suffix only because the trial_type prefix explicitly names the semantic class.

Stability

One fixed seed and training budget; multi-seed sensitivity pending.

Pretraining exposure

Unknown unless explicitly documented; no unseen-pretraining claim.

Notes on the methods

Model terms

Source and licence

TMNRED / ds005383

Credit Yanru Bai, Qi Tang et al. · TMNRED, A Chinese Language EEG Dataset for Fuzzy Semantic Target Identification in Natural Reading Environments (2025), doi:10.1038/s41597-025-05036-2. OpenNeuro ds005383 v1.0.0.

Licence OpenNeuro metadata says CC0; accompanying publication/GitHub says CC BY 4.0 ↗

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 Strong study-specific open-sharing evidence. Aggregate metrics avoid redistribution of stimulus text and participant metadata; credit under CC BY.

Rights reviewed · against doi.org ↗ · www.nature.com ↗

Reproducibility record

Protocol id
parallel-fixed-subject-folds-v1/ds005383
Dataset release
OpenNeuro snapshot 1.0.0 · ad78f3db430e636595b1b1c08417492f3067a25e
Hardware
Local Ubuntu / CUDA
Scoring stage sum
112.4 s · may include accelerator waiting
Audit record SHA-256
5920974ae9ca3876ce1be82497c139f0783d2ff47173641e329af976441de4c4
Summary SHA-256
c5dca7fc30d07a001b8980a4ea65e55ef292f0891a4d32a12262b8ec88389243
Protocol SHA-256
839dfba89cf200aac7a28a7259f45024d006fcd4500170e247fcc1c4e9962c8d

Downloads

Other protocols

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