Leveraging Foundation Models for Calibration-Free c-VEP BCIs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foundation Models (FMs) have surged in popularity over the past five years, with applications spanning fields from computer vision to natural language processing. At the same time, Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) have also gained momentum due to their potential to support individuals with complex disabilities. Among various BCI paradigms, code-modulated Visual Evoked Potentials (c-VEPs) remain relatively understudied, despite offering high information transfer rates and large selection target capacities. However, c-VEP systems require lengthy calibration sessions, significantly limiting their practicality, particularly outside of laboratory settings. In this study, we use a FM for the first time to eliminate the need for lengthy calibration in c-VEP BCI systems. We evaluated two approaches: (1) a truly calibration-free approach requiring no subject-specific data, and (2) a limited calibration approach, where we assessed the benefit of incorporating incremental amounts of calibration data. In both cases, a classification head is trained on data from other subjects. For a new subject, no calibration data is required in the calibration-free setup, making the c-VEP system effectively plug-and-play. The proposed method was tested on two c-VEP datasets. For the calibration-free approach, the average accuracy on the first dataset (n = 17) was 68.8% ± 17.6%, comparable to the full-calibration performance reported in the original study (66.2% ± 13.8%), which required approximately 11 minutes of calibration. On the second dataset (n = 12), the calibration-free accuracy was 71.8% ± 20.2%, versus 93.7% ± 5.5% from the original study, which required around 3.5 minutes. A limited-calibration approach using only 20% of the subject’s data (approximately 43 seconds) yielded 92%±5.2% accuracy. These results indicate that our FM–based approach can effectively eliminate or significantly reduce the need for lengthy calibration in c-VEP BCIs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".