EEG Subject Identification and Open-Set Rejection Across Paradigms

Le résumé fourni par la source

Objective: To compare electroencephalography (EEG)-based subject-identification and open-set rejection performance across experimental paradigms while examining model robustness and cross-session generalization. Methods: The M3CV database was analyzed across resting state, transient sensory stimulation, steady-state sensory stimulation, P300 Oddball, and motor execution. Closed-set identification was evaluated across feature representations, conventional machine-learning models, and raw-EEG deep-learning baselines. Open-set performance was further assessed using an identity-first leakage-free nested procedure with 60 enrolled identities, 15 development unknown identities, and 20 final-test unknown identities. Results: Under the P4 within-session protocol, transient sensory stimulation achieved the highest Rank-1 accuracy (98.10%). Differential entropy and shrinkage linear discriminant analysis achieved mean Rank-1 accuracies of 98.01% and 98.29%, respectively. Under leakage-free nested open-set evaluation, transient sensory stimulation achieved DIR@FPIR = 5%, DIR@FPIR = 1%, and AU-OSCR values of 91.75%, 77.32%, and 97.36%, respectively. Deep-learning analyses confirmed strong within-session identity discrimination but showed model-dependent open-set paradigm rankings. In contrast, strict cross-session transfer produced marked degradation across all model families, with Rank-1 accuracy falling to approximately 1.9–5.4% and verification AUC to approximately 0.53–0.56; unsupervised target normalization provided little recovery. Conclusions: EEG paradigms exhibited strong but largely session-dependent identity discriminability. Transient sensory stimulation provided the most favorable within-session open-set performance under the primary conventional framework, whereas cross-session variability dominated paradigm-dependent differences under zero-shot transfer.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.