Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

CwA-T: A Channelwise AutoEncoder with Transformer for EEG Abnormality Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A channelwise autoencoder that compresses each EEG channel independently, followed by a single-head transformer, reaches 85.0% per-case accuracy on the TUH Abnormal EEG Corpus while cutting transformer FLOPs from 11.9G to 202M.

desk verdict The architecture is reasonable and the efficiency story is useful, but Table 1's per-case numbers are mutually inconsistent, so the headline 85.0% accuracy cannot be verified from the paper as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14522 v2 pith:Q6M6KVEH submitted 2024-12-19 cs.LG cs.AIcs.NEeess.SP

Youshen Zhao , Keiji Iramina This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.NEeess.SP
keywords EEGabnormalitydetectionchannelwiseautoencodertransformerclassifierTUHAbnormalCorpusper-caseclassificationcomputationalefficiencyinterpretabilitydeeplearning
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 tries to show that EEG abnormality detection can be made both accurate and cheap by compressing long raw EEG signals with a channelwise autoencoder before applying a lightweight transformer classifier. The proposed CwA-T model achieves 85.0% per-case accuracy, 76.2% sensitivity, and 91.2% specificity on the TUH Abnormal EEG Corpus, outperforming CNN baselines in the per-case setting while using only 202M FLOPs and 2.9M parameters. The authors claim the channelwise compression preserves each channel's independence, which keeps the model interpretable and lets a single-head transformer handle long sequences without the usual computational blowup. If true, this would make transformer-based EEG analysis practical for clinical and resource-constrained settings.

What carries the argument

The central object is a two-stage architecture: (1) a channelwise CNN autoencoder that applies grouped 1D convolutions with groups equal to the number of EEG channels, followed by additive residual connections and LayerNorm, then downsampling, producing a compressed latent $z \in \mathbb{R}^{C \times D}$ with $D \ll T$; and (2) a single-head transformer classifier with scaled dot-product attention and a position-wise feed-forward network that reads the compressed latent and predicts normal versus abnormal. The channelwise convolution cuts the convolution cost by a factor of $1/C$ relative to standard convolution, and the single-head attention reduces transformer parameter growth, together making the model lightweight. The autoencoder's channel independence is what preserves biological interpretability and prevents inter-channel artifact statistics from leaking, while the transformer captures long-range temporal dependencies in the compressed representation.

What would settle it

Train CwA-T and the four baselines on the same TUH Abnormal EEG Corpus using five-fold subject-disjoint cross-validation with multiple random seeds, reporting mean and standard deviation of per-case accuracy. If the average per-case accuracy of CwA-T is not above Deep4Conv's, or if its 95% confidence interval includes 77.9%, the claim that CwA-T outperforms all baselines in per-case accuracy and sensitivity would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that compressing raw EEG into a compact latent representation with a channelwise CNN autoencoder, then feeding that latent to a single-head transformer classifier, yields a model that is both efficient and clinically competitive. On the TUH Abnormal EEG Corpus (v3.0.1), CwA-T reports 85.0% accuracy, 76.2% sensitivity, and 91.2% specificity at the per-case level, surpassing EEGNet, EEG-ARNN, Deep4Conv, and FusionCNN in per-case accuracy and sensitivity. The same architecture reports 72.8% sensitivity, 84.5% specificity, and 79.1% accuracy per-signal, with the per-case improvement coming from majority voting over segments. The channelwise design keeps the 19 EEG channels independent throughout the autoencoder, and the authors show two interpretability examples where the autoencoder output highlights abnormal beta activity and missing alpha activity that match spectrogram evidence.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracies rest on a single subject-disjoint 9:1 split of 2,717 training recordings into training and validation, only 15 epochs of training, and one evaluation set of 276 recordings, with no reported variance or clarification of how the validation set guided model selection; if that split is unrepresentative, the 85.0% per-case figure could be optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers hold, transformer-based EEG classifiers can run at CNN-level cost: CwA-T's 202M FLOPs and 2.9M parameters versus the standalone single-head transformer's 11.9G FLOPs and 1.3G parameters.
  • Per-case majority voting over 2-minute segments raises accuracy from 79.1% per-signal to 85.0% per-case, suggesting that aggregating segment predictions is a practical way to stabilize clinical labels.
  • Channelwise compression with LayerNorm keeps EEG channels independent, which should prevent eye-blink artifacts in frontal channels (e.g., Fp1, Fp2) from contaminating posterior channels (e.g., O1, O2) during normalization.
  • The interpretability examples indicate that the autoencoder output can localize abnormalities in frequency and space, such as elevated beta activity near 30 Hz at Fz and absent alpha at O1/O2, supporting region-specific EEG analysis.
  • The subject-disjoint train/validation split and per-case evaluation protocol, if followed consistently, offer a template for evaluating abnormality detectors on long-term clinical recordings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is to inspect the transformer's attention similarity matrices across the 19 channels; if those matrices correlate with known functional connectivity patterns, the model could double as a connectivity estimator, not just a classifier.
  • The per-case gain from majority voting assumes that segment-level errors are not correlated within a case; testing on longer recordings or with varying segment lengths would reveal whether the 85.0% accuracy is robust to segmentation choices.
  • Because the paper reports a single train/validation split with 15 epochs and no variance across runs, the 85.0% versus 77.9% gap over Deep4Conv may not be statistically stable; a multi-seed, cross-validated comparison would settle whether the superiority claim generalizes.
  • The channelwise autoencoder's ability to preserve spatial independence suggests it could be extended to other multi-channel biosignals, such as MEG or intracranial EEG, where channel-level interpretability is equally important.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes CwA-T, a two-stage model for binary EEG abnormality detection on the TUH Abnormal EEG Corpus. A channelwise 1D convolutional autoencoder compresses each EEG channel independently via grouped convolution, and a single-head transformer encoder classifies the compressed representation. The authors report 85.0% per-case accuracy, 76.2% sensitivity, and 91.2% specificity, claim superiority over EEGNet, EEG-ARNN, Deep4Conv, and FusionCNN in per-case accuracy and sensitivity, and report 202M FLOPs and 2.9M parameters. The paper also includes an ablation of the transformer versus MLP classifiers, a discussion of LayerNorm versus BatchNorm for channel independence, and two qualitative interpretability examples based on autoencoder outputs and spectrograms.

Significance. If the reported numbers are correct and reproducible, CwA-T offers a useful efficiency/performance trade-off for long-term EEG classification: the channelwise compression is simple, the source code is public, and the FLOP reduction from a standalone transformer (11.9G to 202M) is substantial. The paper honestly acknowledges that Deep4Conv achieves higher per-signal accuracy, and the interpretability examples are concrete. The main significance is incremental: a lightweight architecture for a well-studied benchmark rather than a new phenomenon. The empirical claims are currently unverified because the per-case metrics in Table 1 are mutually inconsistent and no significance testing is reported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 1] The per-case sensitivity/specificity/accuracy triples in Table 1 are not mutually consistent for a fixed evaluation set. For binary classification, Accuracy = Sensitivity × p + Specificity × (1 − p), where p is the proportion of abnormal cases, so p = (Acc − Spec) / (Sens − Spec). Applying this to the per-case rows gives p = 0.376 (EEGNet), 0.372 (EEG-ARNN), 0.370 (Deep4Conv), 0.360 (FusionCNN), and 0.413 (Proposed). Because all models are evaluated on the same evaluation set, these values must agree up to rounding; a spread of 0.05 is far beyond what one-decimal rounding can explain. By contrast, the per-signal rows are internally consistent and all imply p ≈ 0.46, matching the reported 126 abnormal out of 276 recordings. The EEGNet row alone is impossible: predicting every case as abnormal would give accuracy 45.6%, not 37.6%. The central per-case superiority claim is therefore not reproducible from the reported numbers; a per-case confusion matrix or corrected metrics are required.
  2. [Sections 3.3 and 4.1] The claim that CwA-T outperforms the baselines rests on a single train/validation/evaluation split with only 15 training epochs and no significance testing. Deep4Conv's per-signal accuracy (82.1%) is higher than CwA-T's (79.1%), and the per-case differences are modest; without confidence intervals, a paired significance test (e.g., McNemar's test on the evaluation set), or repeated runs with different seeds, the headline improvements may represent noise rather than systematic superiority. The paper should report variance and/or statistical tests before claiming that CwA-T outperforms Deep4Conv, EEG-ARNN, and FusionCNN.
  3. [Sections 3.3 and 3.4] The evaluation protocol is underspecified in ways that affect the validity of the per-case results. The validation set is described as a 9:1 subject-disjoint split of the training set, but the paper does not state how the validation set was used (e.g., early stopping, model selection, or hyperparameter tuning), nor whether a single final model was retrained on the full training set. The relationship between the 276 evaluation recordings and the 253 unique subjects is not explained, and the number of signals per case used in majority voting is not reported. Since per-case accuracy depends on this aggregation, the authors should clarify whether the official TUH train/evaluation split was used, confirm subject disjointness between training and evaluation, and describe the majority-voting procedure in enough detail to reproduce it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2.2, Eqs. (14) and (15)] The parameter-count comparison between single-head and multi-head attention is dimensionally inconsistent. The single-head count is correctly stated as 3 · d · d_k, but the multi-head expression 3 · d · D_orig · d_k does not follow from the standard multi-head parameterization; it should scale with the number of heads h (i.e., h · 3 · d · d_k, or with combined projections). Please correct the formula and the accompanying explanation.
  2. [Table 2 and Section 4.2] FusionCNN's parameter count is listed as 3.4G in Table 2 but as 3.4M in the text of Section 4.2. This discrepancy should be resolved, as it affects the computational-efficiency comparison.
  3. [Section 3.2] The sentence "Segments exceeding 15 minutes were selected for analysis" is unclear given that signals are then segmented into 2-minute windows; presumably the authors mean recordings longer than 15 minutes. Please rephrase.
  4. [Section 4.1 and Table 1] The baseline is referred to as "DeepCNN" in the text of Section 4.1 but as "Deep4Conv" in Table 1 and elsewhere; please use a consistent name. Additionally, no comparison with published state-of-the-art results on the TUH Abnormal EEG Corpus is provided, which would help contextualize the reported improvements.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central accuracy claim is measured on a held-out evaluation set, and the efficiency claims follow from standard architectural arithmetic rather than from fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical accuracy result (85.0% per-case accuracy on the TUH Abnormal EEG Corpus) obtained by training CwA-T on a training set and evaluating on a separate held-out evaluation set. The reported sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy are measured outcomes, not quantities derived from fitted parameters that are then renamed as predictions. The channelwise autoencoder's cost reduction is presented as a direct mathematical consequence of grouped convolution (Eq. 4 vs Eq. 6, ratio Eq. 7), which is standard computational arithmetic and does not rely on circular reasoning. The comparison to a standalone single-head transformer (11.9G FLOPs vs 202M FLOPs) is likewise a direct consequence of operating on a compressed latent representation rather than the raw 12,000-sample input; this is a tautological property of sequence length affecting attention cost, but it is not a fitted-input-called-prediction or a self-referential derivation of the paper's main detection claim. The paper does not invoke any uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work, and its citations to prior architectures (EEGNet, Deep4Conv, FusionCNN, MobileFormer, etc.) are external and used as baselines or inspiration, not as load-bearing justification for the reported results. Although the paper's Table 1 per-case sensitivity/specificity/accuracy triples are internally inconsistent under the stated binary-classification formulas, that issue concerns result reproducibility and correctness, not circularity. Similarly, the un-trained standalone transformer comparison is a limitation but does not make any prediction circular. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the empirical evaluation, so the circularity score is 0.

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

No fundamentally new entities are introduced. The free parameters are experimental design choices that are not varied or justified. The main domain assumptions are about the dataset and preprocessing pipeline, which are standard for this type of work.

free parameters (3)
  • segment duration = 2 minutes
    Chosen by the authors for standardization and batch processing; affects input length and hence compute and performance.
  • number of training epochs = 15
    Chosen without reported early-stopping analysis; different epoch counts could change reported accuracy.
  • warm-up steps = 200
    Learning-rate schedule design choice not justified by experiments.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The TUH Abnormal EEG Corpus labels are correct and the 9:1 subject-disjoint split gives a reliable estimate.
    The paper assumes the corpus labels and the split procedure support the claimed generalization. Section 3.1 and 3.3.
  • domain assumption Downsampling to 100 Hz and 2-minute segmentation preserve enough information for abnormality detection.
    The paper assumes this preprocessing retains clinically relevant features across EEG bands. Section 3.2.
  • standard math Standard backpropagation and the Adam optimizer train the model as intended.
    The paper relies on standard deep learning training assumptions and does not provide any formal verification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CwA-T: A Channelwise AutoEncoder with Transformer for EEG Abnormality Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q6M6KVEH

@misc{pith2026241214522,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CwA-T: A Channelwise AutoEncoder with Transformer for EEG Abnormality Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q6M6KVEH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14522}
}
read the original abstract

Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals are critical for detecting abnormal brain activity, but their high dimensionality and complexity pose significant challenges for effective analysis. In this paper, we propose CwA-T, a novel framework that combines a channelwise CNN-based autoencoder with a single-head transformer classifier for efficient EEG abnormality detection. The channelwise autoencoder compresses raw EEG signals while preserving channel independence, reducing computational costs and retaining biologically meaningful features. The compressed representations are then fed into the transformer-based classifier, which efficiently models long-term dependencies to distinguish between normal and abnormal signals. Evaluated on the TUH Abnormal EEG Corpus, the proposed model achieves 85.0% accuracy, 76.2% sensitivity, and 91.2% specificity at the per-case level, outperforming baseline models such as EEGNet, Deep4Conv, and FusionCNN. Furthermore, CwA-T requires only 202M FLOPs and 2.9M parameters, making it significantly more efficient than transformer-based alternatives. The framework retains interpretability through its channelwise design, demonstrating great potential for future applications in neuroscience research and clinical practice. The source code is available at https://github.com/YossiZhao/CAE-T.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14522 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed CwA-T framework for EEG-based abnormality detection. The framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the channelwise autoencoder architecture. The autoencoder processes input feature maps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The electrode placement in the standard 10-20 system. In our study, we use the signals from Fp1, Fp2, F3, F4, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance comparison of classifiers between MLPs and Single-head transformer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of EEG signals with annotated abnormalities and corresponding autoencoder outputs. This figure illustrates samples of EEG signals from abnormal patients alongside the outputs of the channelwise autoencoder. The raw EEG signal (blue line), autoencoder output (r…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016

    Valery L Feigin, Emma Nichols, Tahiya Alam, Marlena S Bannick, Ettore Beghi, Natacha Blake, William J Culpepper, E Ray Dorsey, Alexis Elbaz, Richard G Ellenbogen, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. The Lancet Neurology, 18(5):459–480, 2019

    work page 1990

  2. [2]

    Burden of neurological disorders across the us from 1990-2017: a global burden of disease study

    Valery L Feigin, Theo V os, Fares Alahdab, Arianna Maever L Amit, Till Winfried Bärnighausen, Ettore Beghi, Mahya Beheshti, Prachi P Chavan, Michael H Criqui, Rupak Desai, et al. Burden of neurological disorders across the us from 1990-2017: a global burden of disease study. JAMA neurology, 78(2):165–176, 2021

    work page 1990

  3. [3]

    Diagnosis and prognosis of mental disorders by means of eeg and deep learning: a systematic mapping study

    Manuel J Rivera, Miguel A Teruel, Alejandro Mate, and Juan Trujillo. Diagnosis and prognosis of mental disorders by means of eeg and deep learning: a systematic mapping study. Artificial Intelligence Review, pages 1–43, 2022. 12

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    A comprehensive survey on the detection, classification, and challenges of neurological disorders

    Aklima Akter Lima, M Firoz Mridha, Sujoy Chandra Das, Muhammad Mohsin Kabir, Md Rashedul Islam, and Yutaka Watanobe. A comprehensive survey on the detection, classification, and challenges of neurological disorders. Biology, 11(3):469, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Feature extraction by using deep learning: A survey

    Suresh Dara and Priyanka Tumma. Feature extraction by using deep learning: A survey. In 2018 Second international conference on electronics, communication and aerospace technology (ICECA), pages 1795–1801. IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Feature extraction and classification for eeg signals using wavelet transform and machine learning techniques

    Hafeez Ullah Amin, Aamir Saeed Malik, Rana Fayyaz Ahmad, Nasreen Badruddin, Nidal Kamel, Muhammad Hussain, and Weng-Tink Chooi. Feature extraction and classification for eeg signals using wavelet transform and machine learning techniques. Australasian physical & engineering sciences in medicine, 38:139–149, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Survey on the research direction of eeg-based signal processing

    Congzhong Sun and Chaozhou Mou. Survey on the research direction of eeg-based signal processing. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 17:1203059, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Feature extraction of epilepsy eeg using discrete wavelet transform

    Asmaa Hamad, Essam H Houssein, Aboul Ella Hassanien, and Aly A Fahmy. Feature extraction of epilepsy eeg using discrete wavelet transform. In 2016 12th international computer engineering conference (ICENCO), pages 190–195. IEEE, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Classification of eeg signal using wavelet transform and support vector machine for epileptic seizure diction

    Rajanikant Panda, PS Khobragade, PD Jambhule, SN Jengthe, PR Pal, and TK Gandhi. Classification of eeg signal using wavelet transform and support vector machine for epileptic seizure diction. In 2010 International conference on systems in medicine and biology, pages 405–408. I...

    2010

  2. [10]

    Motor imagery eeg signal classification with a multivariate time series approach

    Ivan Velasco, A Sipols, C Simon De Blas, Luis Pastor, and Sofia Bayona. Motor imagery eeg signal classification with a multivariate time series approach. BioMedical Engineering OnLine, 22(1):29, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Epileptic seizure detection in long-term eeg recordings by using wavelet-based directed transfer function

    Dong Wang, Doutian Ren, Kuo Li, Yiming Feng, Dan Ma, Xiangguo Yan, and Gang Wang. Epileptic seizure detection in long-term eeg recordings by using wavelet-based directed transfer function. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 65(11):2591–2599, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Eeg conformer: Convolutional transformer for eeg decoding and visualization

    Yonghao Song, Qingqing Zheng, Bingchuan Liu, and Xiaorong Gao. Eeg conformer: Convolutional transformer for eeg decoding and visualization. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering , 31:710–719, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    A transformer- based approach combining deep learning network and spatial-temporal information for raw eeg classification

    Jin Xie, Jie Zhang, Jiayao Sun, Zheng Ma, Liuni Qin, Guanglin Li, Huihui Zhou, and Yang Zhan. A transformer- based approach combining deep learning network and spatial-temporal information for raw eeg classification. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engin...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Tc-net: A transformer capsule network for eeg-based emotion recognition

    Yi Wei, Yu Liu, Chang Li, Juan Cheng, Rencheng Song, and Xun Chen. Tc-net: A transformer capsule network for eeg-based emotion recognition. Computers in biology and medicine, 152:106463, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Epilepsynet: Novel automated detection of epilepsy using transformer model with eeg signals from 121 patient population

    Oh Shu Lih, V Jahmunah, Elizabeth Emma Palmer, Prabal D Barua, Sengul Dogan, Turker Tuncer, Salvador García, Filippo Molinari, and U Rajendra Acharya. Epilepsynet: Novel automated detection of epilepsy using transformer model with eeg signals from 121 patient population. Compu...

    2023

  8. [16]

    A one-dimensional cnn-lstm model for epileptic seizure recognition using eeg signal analysis

    Gaowei Xu, Tianhe Ren, Yu Chen, and Wenliang Che. A one-dimensional cnn-lstm model for epileptic seizure recognition using eeg signal analysis. Frontiers in neuroscience, 14:578126, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    A deep learning based model using rnn-lstm for the detection of schizophrenia from eeg data

    Rinku Supakar, Parthasarathi Satvaya, and Prasun Chakrabarti. A deep learning based model using rnn-lstm for the detection of schizophrenia from eeg data. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 151:106225, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Eeg-based emotion recognition via transformer neural architecture search

    Chang Li, Zhongzhen Zhang, Xiaodong Zhang, Guoning Huang, Yu Liu, and Xun Chen. Eeg-based emotion recognition via transformer neural architecture search. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 19(4):6016– 6025, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Peeking inside the black-box: a survey on explainable artificial intelligence (xai)

    Amina Adadi and Mohammed Berrada. Peeking inside the black-box: a survey on explainable artificial intelligence (xai). IEEE access, 6:52138–52160, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Mobilenets: efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications (2017)

    Andrew G Howard, Menglong Zhu, Bo Chen, Dmitry Kalenichenko, Weijun Wang, Tobias Weyand, Marco Andreetto, and Hartwig Adam. Mobilenets: efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications (2017). arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861, 126, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Mobilenetv3

    Brett Koonce and Brett Koonce. Mobilenetv3. Convolutional Neural Networks with Swift for Tensorflow: Image Recognition and Dataset Categorization, pages 125–144, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Mobile- former: Bridging mobilenet and transformer

    Yinpeng Chen, Xiyang Dai, Dongdong Chen, Mengchen Liu, Xiaoyi Dong, Lu Yuan, and Zicheng Liu. Mobile- former: Bridging mobilenet and transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5270–5279, 2022. 13

    2022

  15. [23]

    Eegnet: a compact convolutional neural network for eeg-based brain–computer interfaces

    Vernon J Lawhern, Amelia J Solon, Nicholas R Waytowich, Stephen M Gordon, Chou P Hung, and Brent J Lance. Eegnet: a compact convolutional neural network for eeg-based brain–computer interfaces. Journal of neural engineering, 15(5):056013, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Deep learning with convolutional neural networks for eeg decoding and visualization

    Robin Tibor Schirrmeister, Jost Tobias Springenberg, Lukas Dominique Josef Fiederer, Martin Glasstetter, Katharina Eggensperger, Michael Tangermann, Frank Hutter, Wolfram Burgard, and Tonio Ball. Deep learning with convolutional neural networks for eeg decoding and visualizati...

    2017

  17. [25]

    Attention is all you need

    A Vaswani. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Transformer quality in linear time

    Weizhe Hua, Zihang Dai, Hanxiao Liu, and Quoc Le. Transformer quality in linear time. In International conference on machine learning, pages 9099–9117. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Carrier frequency and doa estimation of sub-nyquist sampling multi-band sensor signals

    Can Cui, Wen Wu, and Wen-Qin Wang. Carrier frequency and doa estimation of sub-nyquist sampling multi-band sensor signals. IEEE sensors journal, 17(22):7470–7478, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Graph convolution neural network based end-to-end channel selection and classification for motor imagery brain–computer interfaces

    Biao Sun, Zhengkun Liu, Zexu Wu, Chaoxu Mu, and Ting Li. Graph convolution neural network based end-to-end channel selection and classification for motor imagery brain–computer interfaces. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 19(9):9314–9324, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Eeg-based pathology detection for home health monitoring

    Ghulam Muhammad, M Shamim Hossain, and Neeraj Kumar. Eeg-based pathology detection for home health monitoring. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 39(2):603–610, 2020. 14

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.