Back

sEEGnal: an automated EEG preprocessing pipeline evaluated against expert-driven preprocessing

Ramirez-Torano, F.; Hatlestad-Hall, C.; Drews, A.; Renvall, H.; Rossini, P. M.; Marra, C.; Haraldsen, I. H.; Maestu, F.; Bruna, R.

2026-04-20 neurology
10.64898/2026.04.16.26351021 medRxiv
Show abstract

Electroencephalography (EEG) preprocessing is a critical yet time-consuming step that often relies on expert-driven, semi-automatic pipelines, limiting scalability and reproducibility across large datasets. In this work, we present sEEGnal, a fully automated and modular pipeline for EEG preprocessing designed to produce outputs comparable to expert-driven analyses while ensuring consistency and computational efficiency. The pipeline integrates three main modules: data standardization following the EEG extension of the Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS), bad channel detection, and artifact identification, combining physiologically grounded criteria with independent component analysis and ICLabel-based classification. Performance was evaluated against manual preprocessing performed by EEG experts at two complementary levels: preprocessing metadata (bad channels, artifact duration, and rejected components) and EEG-derived measures. In addition, test-retest analyses were conducted to assess the stability of the pipeline across repeated recordings. Results show that sEEGnal achieves performance comparable to expert-driven preprocessing while preserving key neurophysiological features. Furthermore, the pipeline demonstrates reduced variability and increased consistency compared to human experts. These findings support sEEGnal as a robust and scalable solution for automated EEG preprocessing in both research and large-scale applications. HighlightsFully automated and modular EEG preprocessing pipeline. Benchmarked against expert-driven preprocessing. Comparable performance in metadata and EEG-derived measures. Demonstrates stable performance in test-retest recordings. BIDS-based framework for reproducible EEG data handling.

Published in Computers in Biology and Medicine (predicted rank #13) · training set

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.