MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417519355 · doi:10.64898/2025.12.17.694831

An EMG Foundation Model for Neural Decoding

2025· article· W4417519355 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Garrett Kurbis, Alex Mihailidis, Brokoslaw Laschowski

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsScalabilityDeep learningArtificial neural networkConvolutional neural networkBenchmark (surveying)GeneralizationDecoding methodsTransformer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Decoding algorithms can be used to predict motor behaviour from patterns of neural activity. However, most studies rely on subject-optimized models, limiting generalization and scalability to novel subjects and tasks. Building on recent advances in deep learning and large-scale data, here we developed an EMG foundation model for neural decoding. Our model was trained on more than 197 hours of neural recordings from 1,667 subjects. We used unsupervised learning to pretrain our encoder layers on unlabeled data, followed by supervised learning on our benchmark dataset. Additionally, we performed large-scale architecture searches to develop a custom encoder-decoder model composed of convolutional and transformer layers, optimized for both scalability and performance. Our foundation model consistently outperformed the previous state-of-the-art (i.e., subject-optimized models) across both in-distribution and out-of-distribution evaluations. For in-distribution evaluation, few-shot fine-tuning yielded an average F1 score of 0.697, compared to 0.638 for subject-optimized models. For out-of-distribution evaluation on clinical and demographically-shifted subjects, we achieved an average F1 score of 0.599, compared to 0.518 for the subject-optimized baselines. Taken together, our results highlight the value of foundation models for robust and generalizable neural decoding. By publicly releasing our neural network weights and training pipeline, we aim to support future research in computational neuroscience and neural-machine interfaces.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207