Back

A retrospective public external benchmark of healthy-to-stroke lower-limb EEG transport identifies constraints from source construction, adaptation burden, and confound sensitivity

Choi, D.; Choi, A.; Lam, Q.; Park, J.

2026-03-30 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.03.26.714655 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundLower-limb EEG is a rehabilitation-facing control signal for stroke neurorehabilitation and future non-invasive brain-spine interfaces, but a public external benchmark that jointly audits source construction, minimal adaptation burden, and confound sensitivity is lacking. We therefore tested whether lower-limb effort-versus-rest decoders trained on healthy public EEG transport to a stroke target domain. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective public-data external benchmark using three public EEG datasets harmonised to a common lower-limb effort-versus-rest target. Classical and deep models were compared under zero-shot transport, 10-shot temperature calibration, and 10-shot fine-tuning. For few-shot analyses, each target participant contributed a trial-disjoint subject-internal support set of 10 labelled trials per class and a held-out remainder test set. Prespecified analyses audited source construction, support-resampling sensitivity, and montage controls. Uncertainty was summarised with participant-level bootstrap confidence intervals. ResultsWithin this benchmark, healthy-to-stroke zero-shot transport was weak. The best zero-shot result was classical rather than deep, with CSP+LDA reaching area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.603, whereas EEGNet remained near chance (AUROC 0.527). Ten-shot calibration improved operating behaviour more than discrimination: for CSP+LDA, expected calibration error fell from 0.267 to 0.035 and specificity increased from 0.180 to 0.485, whereas AUROC remained essentially unchanged (0.603 to 0.604). Ten-shot fine-tuning produced only modest gains; the best overall AUROC was 0.605 for pooled dataset-balanced CSP+LDA, numerically tied with pooled raw CSP+LDA (0.605). MILimbEEG-only source training was consistently weak, exploratory deep domain-generalisation variants did not rescue transport, and frontal and temporal montage controls remained relatively competitive. ConclusionsWithin this public benchmark, source construction and minimal adaptation burden mattered more than model novelty, and retrospective montage controls limited motor-specific interpretation. The results support harmonised prospective validation of lower-limb EEG transport over further retrospective model iteration.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.2%
2
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
3
Brain
154 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.4%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 27%
4.4%
5
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.2%
6
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 8%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.0%
8
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
9
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.1%
10
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 48%
2.1%
11
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.1%
12
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.9%
13
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
14
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.7%
15
Brain Stimulation
112 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.5%
16
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
17
Nature Neuroscience
216 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
18
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
19
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
20
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
53 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
21
Annals of Neurology
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.8%
23
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
25
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 49%
0.5%
26
Nature
575 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.5%
27
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 37%
0.5%