Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Comprehensive Review of EEG-to-Output Research: Decoding Neural Signals into Images, Videos, and Audio

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A systematic screen of 1,800 EEG studies positions generative models as the core of brain-signal decoding.

desk verdict A review whose PRISMA claim of screening 1,800 studies is unverifiable from the manuscript; the case-study descriptions are accurate, but the systematic-review scaffolding does not hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19999 v1 pith:B2OSH3K5 submitted 2024-12-28 cs.CV cs.AIq-bio.NC

Yashvir Sabharwal , Balaji Rama This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIq-bio.NC
keywords EEGdecodingimagereconstructionvideosynthesisaudiogenerativemodelssystematicreviewbrain-computerinterfacescross-subjectgeneralization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a systematic review of efforts to reconstruct images, videos, and audio directly from EEG brain recordings. The authors screen 1,800 records down to 95 core studies and present three representative systems: EEG2Image for image generation, EEG2Video for dynamic visual decoding, and a bilinear-model framework for scoring the musicality of machine-composed music. The review's central claim is that generative models—GANs, VAEs, and transformers—are the state of the art in EEG-to-output decoding, and that the field's progress is limited mainly by scarce standardized datasets, cross-subject variability, and inconsistent evaluation metrics. If the review's map is correct, it gives researchers a single entry point to the field and points investment toward shared benchmarks and multimodal integration.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on three case studies that stand in for the field. EEG2Image couples a contrastive triplet-loss feature extractor with a conditional GAN modified by mode-seeking regularization to produce $128 \times 128$ reconstructions. EEG2Video uses a Seq2Seq architecture for temporal alignment, a text-embedding semantic predictor, and a dynamic-aware noise-adding (DANA) process to steer a diffusion model toward coherent video. The musicality framework applies a bilinear model to EEG feature matrices, with Gamma-band and DC components as the discriminative signals, to rank compositions. Around these, the review's screening pipeline—identification, screening, eligibility, inclusion, with citation and venue filters—is the mechanism that converts a search of 1,800 records into a 95-study corpus.

What would settle it

Reproduce the search and screening using the paper's stated inclusion criteria and see whether the resulting 95-study corpus would place GANs and image reconstruction as the dominant trend and would include the three case studies among the most influential papers; if the corpus differs materially, or if the case studies fall outside the top papers by the paper's own citation and venue criteria, the review's central characterization of the field would be called into question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that EEG-to-output decoding has become a distinct research area with measurable achievements: images can be reconstructed at $128 \times 128$ resolution using a conditional GAN with triplet-loss features and mode-seeking regularization; dynamic video can be decoded with a Seq2Seq model and a dynamic-aware noise-adding process, yielding a reported SSIM of 0.256 and 15.9% semantic accuracy on a 40-class task; and auditory musicality can be ranked by a bilinear model drawing on Gamma-band EEG. The review asserts that applying a systematic screening protocol to 1,800 initial records yields 95 core studies, and that these studies cluster around generative architectures while sharing the weaknesses of small subject pools, limited cross-subject transfer, and no universal benchmark. The paper's proposed roadmap treats standardized open datasets, transfer and federated learning, multimodal recording, and explainable AI as the necessary next steps for practical brain-computer interfaces.

Load-bearing premise

The review's field-level findings rest on the assumption that the three hand-chosen case studies represent the 95 screened studies, and that the qualitative discussion follows from the screening; the paper does not show the data extraction that would connect them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the review's map is correct, the immediate bottleneck is data, not model architecture: standardized public datasets and shared benchmarks would likely raise reconstruction quality and cross-subject transfer more than further architecture tweaks.
  • Hybrid approaches that combine VAEs with GANs, and transformer-based temporal models, are the most promising near-term designs for closing the image and video quality gap.
  • Multimodal integration (e.g., EEG with fNIRS or MEG) and federated learning could mitigate the privacy and data-scarcity problems the review identifies, making real-world brain-computer interfaces more feasible.
  • The reported EEG2Video numbers (SSIM 0.256, 15.9% semantic accuracy) suggest dynamic video decoding is still early-stage; the roadmap implies that reaching usable video BCIs will require new datasets with naturalistic stimuli and standardized evaluation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The review's screening yields 95 studies, but the paper presents no quantitative trend data connecting those studies to its conclusions; the trends it reports are illustrative and would need a data-extraction pass to be verified.
  • Because the three case studies are the only substantive examples, the review's characterization of the field is only as reliable as the representativeness of those three systems; a different selection could change the apparent balance among image, video, and audio lines of work.
  • A testable extension of the musicality result is to apply the same bilinear EEG-scoring method to other generative outputs (e.g., synthesized speech or deepfake video) to see whether Gamma-band responses track perceptual quality across modalities.
  • If EEG2Video's reported metrics are reproducible on a held-out set, its dynamic-aware noise-adding mechanism could be transferred to other modality-decoding diffusion models; if not, the case for EEG-based video decoding weakens.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims to be a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines, analyzing 1,800 studies to survey EEG-to-output decoding across images, video, and audio. Section 2.1 describes a four-stage screening funnel (1,800 → approximately 295 → 150 → 95) and includes Table 1 as a summary of academic metrics. Section 3 presents three case studies: EEG2Image, Chen's musicality evaluation, and EEG2Video, with equations quoted from the original papers. Section 4 discusses the strengths and limitations of GANs, VAEs, and Transformers, dataset scarcity, cross-subject variability, ethics, and future directions, and Section 5 concludes with a proposed roadmap. The abstract's central claim is that PRISMA-based analysis of 1,800 studies identifies key trends, challenges, and opportunities.

Significance. If the systematic screening were substantiated, this paper would provide a useful, reproducible map of EEG-to-output research and a reliable trend analysis. The manuscript has some strengths: the three case-study descriptions are readable, the equations are recognizable from the cited sources, and the paper explicitly names the PRISMA 2020 guideline. I found no circular-reasoning issue, because the equations are quoted from cited papers and are not used as evidence for the review's own conclusions. However, the central contribution is currently unverifiable: the claimed 1,800-study PRISMA analysis is not supported by the required reporting artifacts, and the 'Findings' section consists of single-paper case studies rather than a synthesis of the 95 allegedly included studies. For these reasons, the present significance is limited to a narrative overview of a few methods.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2.1] The central claim that the authors 'analyze 1800 studies' using PRISMA cannot be verified from the manuscript. PRISMA 2020 requires a flow diagram, database-specific search strings, per-database yields, deduplication counts, exclusion reasons, and a list of included studies. None of these are supplied. The text reports only the final funnel numbers (1,800, approximately 295, 150, 95) with a conceptual query notation, leaving no way to check which studies were screened, why they were excluded, or whether the 95-study set exists. Because this claim is the paper's headline contribution, the omission is load-bearing.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 is corrupted and cannot be used as evidence. For example, the Google Scholar row reads '1765 39 201 3920 .10 22 .21 57 115 .26 13 .86', which cannot be parsed under the stated column headers (Papers, Citations, Cites/Year, Cites/Paper, h-index, g-index, hI-index). Although the Papers column sums to 1,800 across the five sources, the remaining fields are unparseable, and the table is never discussed in the text. A corrupted table cannot substantiate the claimed systematic screening process.
  3. [Section 3, Findings] Section 3 does not report findings from the 95 included studies. It presents three single-paper case studies—EEG2Image, Chen's musicality evaluation, and EEG2Video—with equations and results quoted from those individual papers. There is no data-extraction table, no aggregate distribution of methods, datasets, or metrics across the 95 studies, and no quantitative trend analysis. Consequently, the abstract's claim that the review 'identifies key trends, challenges, and opportunities' is not demonstrably derived from the systematic screening described in Section 2.
  4. [Section 4, Discussion] The Discussion is generic and disconnected from the alleged 95-study pool. Statements such as GANs being 'notoriously difficult to train' and Transformers requiring 'large datasets for optimal performance' are textbook observations supported by general references rather than by an analysis of the screened EEG-to-output literature. No synthesis, evidence table, or citation of the 95 studies connects the discussion to the claimed systematic review, so Section 4 does not deliver on the promise of a field-level trend analysis.
  5. [Section 2.1, Reference [21]] The statement 'We followed a similar methodology as Jain et al. [21]' is problematic because reference [21] is arXiv:2312.10057, 'Generative AI in writing research papers: A new type of algorithmic bias and uncertainty in scholarly work.' That paper is not a systematic-review methodology paper, so it cannot serve as a methodological precedent for the PRISMA process described here. This further weakens the credibility of the claimed methodology.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The final sentence mixes grammatical forms: 'to improve decoding accuracy and broadening real-world applications' should be 'to improve decoding accuracy and broaden real-world applications.'
  2. [Section 2.1] The funnel counts are reported with inconsistent precision: 'exactly 1800 studies' is stated as an exact number, while the next step is 'approximately 295 papers.' The source of the exactness of 1,800 should be explained.
  3. [Table 1] Table 1 is not referenced or discussed anywhere in the text; if it is retained, a caption and a clear explanation of its construction are needed.
  4. [References] Several reference entries contain line-break artifacts that will break URLs in the compiled PDF, including references 24, 25, and 42; these should be cleaned before any resubmission.
  5. [Section 3.2] The bilinear model equation f(X_s^m) = w_1^T X_s^m w_2 + b is presented without specifying the rank of the bilinear term or how the projection vectors are constrained; a brief clarifying sentence would improve the summary.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation chain: the review's equations are quoted from external papers and no fitted quantity is repackaged as a prediction.

full rationale

This is a narrative/systematic-style review, not a derivation paper. The central claim is that the authors followed PRISMA and analyzed 1,800 studies, but even if that screening is unverifiable from the manuscript, unverifiability is a reporting/reproducibility concern, not a circularity one. No model is fitted here and no quantity is defined in terms of its own target. The equations presented in the case studies (triplet loss and MSR for EEG2Image, the bilinear musicality model from Chen, and the Seq2Seq/DANA formulation for EEG2Video) are quoted from cited external papers (refs 24, 35, 42) and are used descriptively to illustrate individual methods; they do not feed back into the review's stated findings or roadmap. The only apparent author overlap is reference 25, Alljoined1, whose author list includes Yashvir Sabharwal; that citation supports the inclusion criterion that studies should use publicly available EEG datasets, and it is an external dataset resource rather than a load-bearing self-citation that forces any conclusion. Thus none of the seven circularity patterns is present: there is no self-definitional reduction, no fitted input relabeled as a prediction, no self-citation chain used to justify the central premise, and no renaming of a known result. The appropriate honest finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review introduces no mathematical model, free parameters, or new entities. Its only input is the cited literature and the authors' selection rules.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The prior EEG-to-output papers summarized in the case studies (e.g., EEG2Image, EEG2Video, Chen 2017) are correctly reported and represent the state of the art.
    The review's conclusions depend on the accuracy of these third-party results; it quotes their equations without independent verification.
  • domain assumption The database search query (EEG, image/video/audio, generative models) and the subjective prioritization criteria define the relevant literature.
    This definition of scope determines which studies enter the review; a different query would change the conclusions.
  • domain assumption The final 95 studies are considered sufficient to identify key trends in the field.
    No quantitative synthesis is given, so the trends rest on this sufficiency assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comprehensive Review of EEG-to-Output Research: Decoding Neural Signals into Images, Videos, and Audio." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B2OSH3K5

@misc{pith2026241219999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comprehensive Review of EEG-to-Output Research: Decoding Neural Signals into Images, Videos, and Audio},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B2OSH3K5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19999}
}
read the original abstract

Electroencephalography (EEG) is an invaluable tool in neuroscience, offering insights into brain activity with high temporal resolution. Recent advancements in machine learning and generative modeling have catalyzed the application of EEG in reconstructing perceptual experiences, including images, videos, and audio. This paper systematically reviews EEG-to-output research, focusing on state-of-the-art generative methods, evaluation metrics, and data challenges. Using PRISMA guidelines, we analyze 1800 studies and identify key trends, challenges, and opportunities in the field. The findings emphasize the potential of advanced models such as Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), Variational Autoencoders (VAEs), and Transformers, while highlighting the pressing need for standardized datasets and cross-subject generalization. A roadmap for future research is proposed that aims to improve decoding accuracy and broadening real-world applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Jain, R., Jain, A.: Generative ai in writing research pap ers: A new type of al- gorithmic bias and uncertainty in scholarly work (arXiv:23 12.10057) (Dec 2023), http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10057, arXiv:2312.10057

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Jou rnal of Clinical Neuro- physiology: Official Publication of the American Electroenc ephalographic Society 30(1), 28–44 (Feb 2013)

    Stone, J.L., Hughes, J.R.: Early history of electroencep halography and establish- ment of the american clinical neurophysiology society. Jou rnal of Clinical Neuro- physiology: Official Publication of the American Electroenc ephalographic Society 30(1), 28–44 (Feb 2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [2]

    American Epilepsy Society (2 016), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK390347/

    Louis, E.K.S., Frey, L.C., Britton, J.W., Frey, L.C., Hop p, J.L., Korb, P., Koubeissi, M.Z., Lievens, W.E., Pestana-Knight, E.M., Louis, E.K.S.: EEG in the Epilepsies. American Epilepsy Society (2 016), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK390347/

    work page

  4. [3]

    IEEE Access 11, 127271–1273 01 (2023), https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10305163

    Abibullaev, B., Keutayeva, A., Zollanvari, A.: Deep lear ning in eeg- based bcis: A comprehensive review of transformer models, a dvantages, challenges, and applications. IEEE Access 11, 127271–1273 01 (2023), https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10305163

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [4]

    Current protocols i n neuroscience / edi- torial board, Jacqueline N

    Light, G.A., Williams, L.E., Minow, F., Sprock, J., Rissl ing, A., Sharp, R., Swerd- low, N.R., Braff, D.L.: Electroencephalography (eeg) and ev ent-related poten- tials (erp’s) with human participants. Current protocols i n neuroscience / edi- torial board, Jacqueline N. Crawley ... [et al.] CHAPTER, Un it–6.2524 (Jul 2010), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

    work page 2010

  6. [5]

    Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 16, 1000495 ( Sep 2022), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9538357/

    Jangwan, N.S., Ashraf, G.M., Ram, V., Singh, V., Alghamdi , B.S., Abuzenadah, A.M., Singh, M.F.: Brain augmentation and neur o- science technologies: current applications, challenges, ethics and future prospects. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 16, 1000495 ( Sep 2022), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9538357/

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Neuroscience Informatics 3(2), 100128 (J un 2023), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772528623000134

    Kardam, V.S., Taran, S., Pandey, A.: Motor imagery tasks based electroencephalogram signals classification using d ata- driven features. Neuroscience Informatics 3(2), 100128 (J un 2023), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772528623000134

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Diagnos tics 13(4), 640 (Feb 2023), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9955721/

    Siddiqui, F., Mohammad, A., Alam, M.A., Naaz, S., Agarwal , P., So- hail, S.S., Madsen, D.O.: Deep neural network for eeg signal -based subject- independent imaginary mental task classification. Diagnos tics 13(4), 640 (Feb 2023), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9955721/

    work page 2023

Show all 61 references
  1. [8]

    Frontiers in Neuroscience 1 5 (Apr 2021), https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2021.670745

    Wen, W.: Sleep quality detection based on eeg signals usin g transfer sup- port vector machine algorithm. Frontiers in Neuroscience 1 5 (Apr 2021), https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2021.670745

    2021

  2. [9]

    Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 5, 107280 1 (Jan 2023), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9905640/

    Singh, A.K., Krishnan, S.: Trends in eeg signal feature ex traction ap- plications. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 5, 107280 1 (Jan 2023), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9905640/

    2023

  3. [10]

    Scientific Reports 13(1), 21 748 (Dec 2023), https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49048-7

    Rogala, J., ˙Zygierewicz, J., Malinowska, U., Cygan, H., Stawicka, E., K obus, A., Vanrumste, B.: Enhancing autism spectrum disorder clas sification in chil- dren through the integration of traditional statistics and classical machine learn- ing techniques in eeg analysis. Scie...

    2023

  4. [11]

    Computers in Biology and Medicine 178, 108 701 (Aug 2024), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010482524007868

    Ferrante, M., Boccato, T., Bargione, S., Toschi, N.: Dec oding visual brain repre- sentations from electroencephalography through knowledg e distillation and latent diffusion models. Computers in Biology and Medicine 178, 108 701 (Aug 2024), https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...

    2024

  5. [12]

    Journal of NeuroEnginee ring and Rehabilitation 20, 40 (Apr 2023), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art icles/PMC10088201/ 12 Sabharwal et al

    Habashi, A.G., Azab, A.M., Eldawlatly, S., Aly, G.M.: Ge nerative adversarial net- works in eeg analysis: an overview. Journal of NeuroEnginee ring and Rehabilitation 20, 40 (Apr 2023), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art icles/PMC10088201/ 12 Sabharwal et al

    2023

  6. [13]

    Communications Biology 7(1), 1–14 (Oct 2024), https://www.nature.com/articles/ s42003-024-07007-6

    Liu, C., Zhuang, K., Zeitlen, D.C., Chen, Q., Wang, X., Fe ng, Q., Beaty, R.E., Qiu, J.: Neural, genetic, and cognitive signatures of creativit y. Communications Biology 7(1), 1–14 (Oct 2024), https://www.nature.com/articles/ s42003-024-07007-6

    2024

  7. [14]

    Neurosurgical focus 27(1), E4 (Jul 20 09), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920041/

    Leuthardt, E.C., Schalk, G., Roland, J., Rouse, A., Mora n, D.W.: Evolution of brain-computer interfaces: going beyon d clas- sic motor physiology. Neurosurgical focus 27(1), E4 (Jul 20 09), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920041/

  8. [15]

    Jour- nal of Yeungnam Medical Science 41(4), 261–268 (Sep 2024), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11534409/

    Yun, S.: Advances, challenges, and prospects of electro encephalography- based biomarkers for psychiatric disorders: a narrative re view. Jour- nal of Yeungnam Medical Science 41(4), 261–268 (Sep 2024), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11534409/

    2024

  9. [16]

    International Journal of Psychophysiology 97(3 ), 210–220 (Sep 2015), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548479/

    Burle, B., Spieser, L., Roger, C., Casini, L., Hasbroucq , T., Vidal, F.: Spatial and temporal resolutions of eeg: Is it really black and white? a s calp current den- sity view. International Journal of Psychophysiology 97(3 ), 210–220 (Sep 2015), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

    2015

  10. [17]

    Liu, H., Zhang, Y., Liu, G., Du, X., Wang, H., Zhang, D.: A m ulti-label eeg dataset for mental attention state classification in online learnin g (arXiv:2411.09879) (Nov 2024), http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.09879, arXiv:2411.09 879

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    : Eeg variability: Task- driven or subject-driven signal of interest? NeuroImage 25 2, 119034 (May 2022), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381192200163X

    Gibson, E., Lobaugh, N.J., Joordens, S., McIntosh, A.R. : Eeg variability: Task- driven or subject-driven signal of interest? NeuroImage 25 2, 119034 (May 2022), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381192200163X

    2022

  12. [19]

    BMC Medical Ethics 18, 60 (Nov 2017), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5680604/

    Burwell, S., Sample, M., Racine, E.: Ethical aspects of b rain computer interfaces: a scoping review. BMC Medical Ethics 18, 60 (Nov 2017), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5680604/

    2017

  13. [20]

    Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mul- row, C.D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J.M., Akl, E.A., Brennan, S.E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J.M., Hr´ objartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E.W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinnes...

    2020

  14. [22]

    org/abs/2309.15515, arXiv:2309.15515

    Zhang, K., Ye, Z., Ai, Q., Xie, X., Liu, Y.: Gnn4eeg: A benc h- mark and toolkit for electroencephalography classificatio n with graph neu- ral network (arXiv:2309.15515) (Sep 2023), http://arxiv. org/abs/2309.15515, arXiv:2309.15515

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 22(9 ), 3331 (Apr 2022), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101004/

    V¨ arbu, K., Muhammad, N., Muhammad, Y.: Past, present, a nd future of eeg- based bci applications. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 22(9 ), 3331 (Apr 2022), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101004/

    2022

  16. [24]

    Singh, P., Pandey, P., Miyapuram, K., Raman, S.: Eeg2ima ge: Image reconstruction from eeg brain signals (arXiv:2302.10121) (Mar 2023), http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.10121, arXiv:2302.10121

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Xu, J., Aristimunha, B., Feucht, M.E., Qian, E., Liu, C., Shahjahan, T., Spyra, M., Zhang, S.Z., Short, N., Kim, J., Perdomo, P., Mao, R.R., Sab- harwal, Y., Shoura, M.A.M., Nestor, A.: Alljoined1 – a datas et for eeg-to- image decoding (arXiv:2404.05553) (May 2024), http://ar...

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Journal of Medical Imaging 4(3), 0355 01 (Jul 2017), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5527267/

    Renieblas, G.P., Nogu´ es, A.T., Gonz´ alez, A.M., G´ ome z-Leon, N., del Castillo, E.G.: Structural similarity index family for image quality assessment in radiological images. Journal of Medical Imaging 4(3), 0355 01 (Jul 2017), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5527267/

    2017

  19. [27]

    Inter national Jour- nal of Qualitative Methods 16(1), 1609406917733847 (Dec 20 17), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1609406917733847

    Nowell, L.S., Norris, J.M., White, D.E., Moules, N.J.: T hematic anal- ysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Inter national Jour- nal of Qualitative Methods 16(1), 1609406917733847 (Dec 20 17), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1609406917733847

    doi

  20. [28]

    Systematic Reviews 5( 1), 74 (May 2016), https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x

    Booth, A.: Searching for qualitative research for inclu sion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review. Systematic Reviews 5( 1), 74 (May 2016), https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    Frontiers in Neuroinfo rmatics 14 (Apr 2020), https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroinformatics/articles/10.3389/fninf.2020.00015

    Luo, T.j., Fan, Y., Chen, L., Guo, G., Zhou, C.: Eeg signal reconstruc- tion using a generative adversarial network with wasserste in distance and temporal-spatial-frequency loss. Frontiers in Neuroinfo rmatics 14 (Apr 2020), https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroinformati...

    2020

  22. [30]

    Schroff, F., Kalenichenko, D., Philbin, J.: Facenet: A un ified em- bedding for face recognition and clustering. p. 815–823 (20 15), https://www.cv-foundation.org/openaccess/content cvpr 2015/html/Schroff FaceNet A Unified 2015 CVPR paper.html

    2015

  23. [31]

    Mao, Q., Lee, H.Y., Tseng, H.Y., Ma, S., Yang, M.H.: Mode s eeking gener- ative adversarial networks for diverse image synthesis. p. 1429–1437 (2019), https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content CVPR 2019/html/Mao Mode Seeking Generative Adversarial Networks for Diverse Image Synthe...

    2019

  24. [32]

    In: P roceedings of the 26th ACM international conference on Multimedia

    Tirupattur, P., Rawat, Y.S., Spampinato, C., Shah, M.: T houghtviz: Visualizing human thoughts using generative adversarial network. In: P roceedings of the 26th ACM international conference on Multimedia. p. 950–958. AC M, Seoul Republic of Korea (Oct 2018), https://dl.acm.or...

    2018

  25. [33]

    Frontiers in Human Neuro science 14, 103 (Apr 2020), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7188358/

    Xu, L., Xu, M., Ke, Y., An, X., Liu, S., Ming, D.: Cross-dat aset variability problem in eeg decoding with deep learning. Frontiers in Human Neuro science 14, 103 (Apr 2020), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7188358/

    2020

  26. [34]

    Zhang, Z., Thwaites, A., Woolgar, A., Moore, B., Zhang, C .: Swim: Short- window cnn integrated with mamba for eeg-based auditory spa tial atten- tion decoding (arXiv:2409.19884) (Nov 2024), http://arxi v.org/abs/2409.19884, arXiv:2409.19884

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    In: Proceedi ngs of the 25th ACM international conference on Multimedia

    Chen, G.: Who composes the music? musicality evaluation for algorith- mic composition via electroencephalography. In: Proceedi ngs of the 25th ACM international conference on Multimedia. p. 826–830. MM ’17, As- sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (Oct 20 17), ...

  28. [36]

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    Bhattacharya, J., Petsche, H.: Universality in the brai n while lis- tening to music. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 268(1484), 2423–2433 (Dec 20 01), https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2001.1802

  29. [37]

    Journal of Neuroscience 21( 16), 6329–6337 (Aug 2001), https://www.jneurosci.org/content/21/16/6329

    Bhattacharya, J., Petsche, H., Pereda, E.: Long-range s ynchrony in the gamma band: Role in music perception. Journal of Neuroscience 21( 16), 6329–6337 (Aug 2001), https://www.jneurosci.org/content/21/16/6329

    2001

  30. [38]

    mozart effect

    Jauˇ sovec, N., Habe, K.: The “mozart effect”: An electroe ncephalographic analysis employing the methods of induced event-related de synchroniza- tion/synchronization and event-related coherence. Brain Topography 16(2), 73–84 (Dec 2003), https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BRAT.00000063...

    2003 doi

  31. [39]

    IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 57(7), 1798–1806 ( Jul 2010), https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5458075

    Lin, Y.P., Wang, C.H., Jung, T.P., Wu, T.L., Jeng, S.K., D uann, J.R., Chen, J.H.: Eeg-based emotion recognition in music listeni ng. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 57(7), 1798–1806 ( Jul 2010), https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5458075

    2010

  32. [40]

    Neuropsychologia 40(13), 2242–2256 (Jan 2002), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393202001070

    Altenm¨ uller, E., Sch¨ urmann, K., Lim, V.K., Parlitz, D .: Hits to the left, flops to the right: different emotions during listening to music ar e reflected in cor- tical lateralisation patterns. Neuropsychologia 40(13), 2242–2256 (Jan 2002), https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...

    2002

  33. [41]

    Electroencephalography: basic principles , clinical applications, and related fields p

    SPECKMANN, E.: Introduction of the neurophysiological basis of the eeg and dc potentials. Electroencephalography: basic principles , clinical applications, and related fields p. 15–26 (1993), https://cir.nii.ac.jp/cri d/1571135649699169408

    1993

  34. [42]

    Liu, X., Liu, Y.K., Wang, Y., Ren, K., Shi, H., Wang, Z., Li , D., Lu, B.l., Zheng, W.L.: Eeg2video: Towards decoding dynamic visual percepti on from eeg signals (Nov 2024), https://openreview.net/forum?id=RfsfRn9OF d

    2024

  35. [43]

    Cer ebral Cortex 28(12), 4136–4160 (Dec 2018), https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/b hx268

    Wen, H., Shi, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, K.H., Cao, J., Liu, Z.: Neu ral encoding and decoding with deep learning for dynamic natural vision. Cer ebral Cortex 28(12), 4136–4160 (Dec 2018), https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/b hx268

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    Kupershmidt, G., Beliy, R., Gaziv, G., Irani, M.: A penny for your (visual) thoughts: Self-supervised reconstruction of nat ural movies from brain activity (arXiv:2206.03544) (Jun 2022), http://arx iv.org/abs/2206.03544, arXiv:2206.03544

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Chen, Z., Qing, J., Zhou, J.H.: Cinematic mindscapes: Hi gh-quality video reconstruction from brain activity. Advances in Neural Inf ormation Process- ing Systems 36, 24841–24858 (Dec 2023), https://proceedin gs.neurips.cc/paper files/paper/2023/hash/4e5e0daf4b05d8bfc6377f33fd5...

    2023

  38. [46]

    Sun, J., Li, M., Chen, Z., Moens, M.F.: Neurocine: Decodi ng vivid video sequences from human brain activties (arXiv:2402.01 590) (May 2024), http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01590, arXiv:2402.01590

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 13(4), 600–612 (Apr 2004), https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstra ct/document/1284395

    Wang, Z., Bovik, A., Sheikh, H., Simoncelli, E.: Image qu ality assessment: from er- ror visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 13(4), 600–612 (Apr 2004), https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstra ct/document/1284395

    2004

  40. [48]

    IEEE trans- actions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering: a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 32, 1267–1283 ( 2024)

    Meng, L., Yang, C.: Semantics-guided hierarchical feat ure encoding generative ad- versarial network for visual image reconstruction from bra in activity. IEEE trans- actions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering: a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine an...

    2024

  41. [49]

    Sushko, V., Zhang, D., Gall, J., Khoreva, A.: Generating novel scene com- positions from single images and videos (arXiv:2103.13389 ) (Dec 2023), http://arxiv.org/abs/2103.13389, arXiv:2103.13389

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Physical Review X 13(4), 04100 4 (Oct 2023), https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041004

    Durr, S., Mroueh, Y., Tu, Y., Wang, S.: Effective dynamics of gener- ative adversarial networks. Physical Review X 13(4), 04100 4 (Oct 2023), https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041004

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    Arjovsky, M., Chintala, S., Bottou, L.: Wasserstein gan (arXiv:1701.07875) (Dec 2017), http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.07875, arXiv:1701.07 875

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    05957) (Feb 2018), http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.05957, arXiv:1802.05957

    Miyato, T., Kataoka, T., Koyama, M., Yoshida, Y.: Spectr al normal- ization for generative adversarial networks (arXiv:1802. 05957) (Feb 2018), http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.05957, arXiv:1802.05957

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Zhu, M., Kanjiani, R., Lu, J., Choi, A., Ye, Q., Zhao, L.: L atentexplainer: Ex- plaining latent representations in deep generative models with multi-modal foun- dation models (arXiv:2406.14862) (Jun 2024), http://arxi v.org/abs/2406.14862, arXiv:2406.14862 EEG-to-Output Resea...

    2024

  46. [54]

    Bond-Taylor, S., Leach, A., Long, Y., Willcocks, C.G.: D eep generative modelling: A comparative review of vaes, gans, normalizing flows, energ y-based and autore- gressive models (arXiv:2103.04922) (Mar 2022), http://ar xiv.org/abs/2103.04922, arXiv:2103.04922

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Future Internet 15(8), 260 (Aug 2023), https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/15/8/260

    Bandi, A., Adapa, P.V.S.R., Kuchi, Y.E.V.P.K.: The powe r of genera- tive ai: A review of requirements, models, input–output for mats, eval- uation metrics, and challenges. Future Internet 15(8), 260 (Aug 2023), https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/15/8/260

    2023

  48. [56]

    AI Open 3, 111–132 (Jan 2022), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666651022000146

    Lin, T., Wang, Y., Liu, X., Qiu, X.: A sur- vey of transformers. AI Open 3, 111–132 (Jan 2022), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666651022000146

    2022

  49. [57]

    Wang, B., Fu, X., Lan, Y., Zhang, L., Zheng, W., Xiang, Y.: Large transformers are better eeg learners (arXiv:2308.11654) ( Apr 2024), http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.11654, arXiv:2308.11654

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 19(5), 987 (Fe b 2019), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6427454/

    Jiang, X., Bian, G.B., Tian, Z.: Removal of artifacts fro m eeg sig- nals: A review. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 19(5), 987 (Fe b 2019), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6427454/

    2019

  51. [59]

    Expert Systems with Applications 24 2, 122807 (May 2024), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417423033092

    Zhao, Z., Alzubaidi, L., Zhang, J., Duan, Y., Gu, Y.: A com parison review of transfer learning and self-supervised learning: Definitio ns, applications, advan- tages and limitations. Expert Systems with Applications 24 2, 122807 (May 2024), https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...

    2024

  52. [60]

    Neuropsychologia 106, 371–382 (Nov 2017), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/a rticles/PMC5707129/

    Moore, T.M., Key, A.P., Thelen, A., Hornsby, B.W.Y.: Neu ral mechanisms of mental fatigue elicited by sustained auditory processing. Neuropsychologia 106, 371–382 (Nov 2017), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/a rticles/PMC5707129/

    2017

  53. [61]

    Neurocomputing 562, 12 6901 (Dec 2023), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092523122301024X

    Gra˜ na, M., Morais-Quilez, I.: A review of graph neural n etworks for elec- troencephalography data analysis. Neurocomputing 562, 12 6901 (Dec 2023), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092523122301024X

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.