Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 25 references

CATVis: Context-Aware Thought Visualization

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CATVis decodes what a person sees from EEG by aligning brain embeddings with captions, reporting double-digit gains over prior EEG-to-image methods.

desk verdict A plausible extension of BrainVis with a useful re-ranking idea, but the headline generation gains rest on a retrieval step that likely leaks the ground-truth caption into the conditioning. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11522 v1 pith:7MTYA7QL submitted 2025-07-15 cs.CV cs.LG

Tariq Mehmood , Hamza Ahmad , Muhammad Haroon Shakeel , Murtaza Taj This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords EEGdecodingvisualreconstructionbrain-computerinterfacecross-modalalignmentCLIPStableDiffusioncaptionre-rankingEEG-ImageNet
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

The paper claims that a person's visual experience can be reconstructed from EEG signals with substantially better accuracy than prior methods by using text captions as an intermediate representation. CATVis is a five-stage pipeline: an EEG encoder classifies the stimulus concept, a contrastive alignment projects EEG and caption embeddings into a shared CLIP space, a retrieval-and-re-ranking step refines the caption, a beta-weighted interpolation mixes concept and caption embeddings, and a pre-trained Stable Diffusion model generates the image. On the EEG-ImageNet dataset the authors report 61.09% top-1 classification accuracy (a 13.43% gain over the prior state of the art), 15.21% higher generation accuracy, and a 36.61% lower FID. The contribution is a supervised, resource-light route to context-aware EEG-to-image generation, capturing not just the object class but descriptive details such as setting and color.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the shared CLIP embedding space, where EEG signals and text captions are compared directly. A supervised EEG Conformer is trained to classify the concept and, in a separate stage, projected to 768-dimensional L2-normalized embeddings that are pulled toward their paired CLIP text embeddings by a symmetric contrastive (InfoNCE) loss. The caption-refinement stage then performs a two-step lookup: retrieve the top-k captions from the whole corpus using cosine similarity (Eq. 4), and re-rank those candidates by how well they match the predicted class embedding. The resulting caption embedding is interpolated with the class embedding using a Beta(10,10)-sampled weight (Eq. 5), producing the conditioning vector for Stable Diffusion's cross-attention.

What would settle it

Remove the ground-truth caption of every test image from the retrieval corpus and re-run the pipeline with everything else fixed; if the generation accuracy and FID gains over the no-re-ranking baseline (Table 2) largely disappear, the paper's central claim that re-ranking adds context-aware EEG decoding is falsified. A supporting check is to measure how often the top-1 retrieved caption equals the ground-truth caption: near-perfect retrieval would show the 'generation' is caption lookup.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CATVis's central claim is that EEG-to-image generation improves when the brain signal is aligned to text rather than only to class labels. The EEG encoder (a supervised Conformer trained from scratch) predicts the object class; the same encoder is adapted to project embeddings into CLIP space and trained with a symmetric contrastive loss against caption embeddings. For a given EEG query, the pipeline retrieves the top-k most similar captions from the entire corpus and re-ranks them by the predicted class before sampling the interpolation mixture $z = \lambda e_{\text{class}} + (1-\lambda)e_{\text{text}}$ that conditions Stable Diffusion. The authors report that this re-ranking alone raises generation accuracy by 6.99% and cuts FID by 3.43%, and that the full pipeline outperforms BrainVis in classification accuracy, generation accuracy, Inception Score, and FID.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that searching the candidate pool that contains the test image's own ground-truth caption is a fair way to measure caption refinement; if the correct caption is in the pool, the re-ranking step can behave like a lookup instead of a prediction from EEG.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers hold, EEG-to-image generation does not need self-supervised pretraining: a supervised Conformer trained from scratch achieves the best published classification accuracy on EEG-ImageNet.
  • Because the interpolation weight is user-controlled, the same pipeline can favor object-class fidelity or descriptive variety depending on the application.
  • Caption re-ranking alone yields +6.99% GA, +6.30% IS, and −3.43% FID without retraining the EEG encoder or the diffusion model.
  • The 36.61% FID reduction implies the generated images are much closer in feature distribution to the original visual stimuli than earlier EEG-to-image outputs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the retrieval stage searches the entire EEG-ImageNet corpus, which contains the ground-truth caption of the test image, so part of the re-ranking gain may be lookup rather than EEG-based inference; excluding test captions from the gallery would reveal how much genuine decoding remains.
  • Editorial extension: the paper does not report EEG-to-caption retrieval accuracy, which would directly measure how well the alignment step selects the correct description; that metric would separate caption selection from image generation quality.
  • Editorial extension: the same recipe (concept classification, cross-modal alignment, retrieval, interpolation, diffusion) should transfer to other neural recordings such as fMRI, or to other generative backbones, since the only EEG-specific stage is the encoder and alignment head.
  • Editorial extension: a real-world BCI cannot assume the exact caption of the stimulus is in the candidate pool, so deployment would require a much larger or open-vocabulary caption source; the reported numbers upper-bound what such a system could achieve.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CATVis, a five-stage EEG-to-image reconstruction pipeline: a supervised EEG Conformer for concept classification, contrastive alignment of EEG and caption embeddings in CLIP space, caption refinement by retrieval and re-ranking, Beta-weighted interpolation of concept and caption embeddings, and Stable Diffusion-based image generation. Experiments on EEG-ImageNet report a Top-1 classification accuracy of 61.09% and generation metrics (GA 0.5265 average, IS 37.49, FID 80.29) that the authors state outperform prior methods by large margins. The central claim is that context-aware caption refinement enables high-quality EEG-conditioned image generation.

Significance. If the reported results were leakage-free and reproducible, CATVis would be a meaningful step for EEG-to-image generation: the supervised Conformer achieves strong classification accuracy with a straightforward training scheme, the framework is simple and modular, and the ablations on the encoder components and interpolation weights are useful. The use of a pre-trained Stable Diffusion with cross-modal alignment is sensible. However, the headline generation and FID claims are currently undermined by a likely test-set leakage in the caption-retrieval stage, and the lack of code, data, and error bars prevents independent verification. Until the retrieval protocol is fixed and the experiments are re-run, the reported gains over SOTA are not supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (4); §4.1] The caption-refinement step retrieves top-k captions from X, defined as 'n caption embeddings belonging to the entire corpus' (Eq. 4). Since Section 4.1 states that ground-truth captions for every stimulus are generated with Florence-2 and the provided train/validation/test splits are used, the gallery contains the test image's own caption. The contrastive loss in Eq. (2) explicitly pulls each EEG embedding toward its paired caption, so the matching caption of a test EEG is likely to be inside the top-k set, and the class-guided re-ranking can then select it. The downstream Stable Diffusion stage is therefore conditioned on a near-exact textual description of the target image, making the GA, IS, and FID numbers in Tables 3 and 4 measures of text-to-image generation from the dataset annotation rather than of EEG decoding. The re-ranking ablation in Table 2 (GA 0.5307→0.5678, FID 86.08→83.13) likely reflects how often the correct caption rises to the top after class re-ranking. The authors must exclude test captions from the retrieval gallery, report the gallery size k, and re-run all generation experiments; the abstract claims of +15.21% GA and -36.61% FID are unsupported as written.
  2. [Tables 3 and 4; §5] All reported metrics are point estimates without standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The improvements over baselines (13.43% CA, 15.21% GA, 36.61% FID) are presented as deterministic facts, but with a single trial and no code or data release it is impossible to tell whether these differences are meaningful or noise. The authors should report mean±std over multiple random seeds and over subjects, and perform a paired significance test for GA and FID against the strongest baseline. This is essential because the GA protocol in §4.3 involves random selection of N-1 classes, which needs variance control.
  3. [§4.1] The band-pass filter is set to 55-95 Hz, which is an unusual frequency range for visual EEG decoding; most prior EEG-to-image work uses lower-frequency bands (e.g., theta/alpha/beta) or the full spectrum. The text attributes this choice to reference [12], but [12] is the EEG-ImageNet dataset paper and does not justify 55-95 Hz as the cognitively relevant band. The authors should either provide physiological or empirical justification for this band or report an ablation over frequency bands. This matters because the reported classification accuracy of 61.09% could be an artifact of this specific preprocessing choice.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3] The value of k in Eq. (4) is never specified in the implementation details; please state the exact gallery size and the number of retrieved candidates used in the experiments.
  2. [§4.3] The GA evaluation randomly selects N-1 classes in each trial, but no random seed or number of independent evaluation runs is reported; please specify how randomness is controlled so the metric is reproducible.
  3. [Abstract and Table 1] The claim of '13.43% higher classification accuracy' is presented as a percentage, but the table shows 0.61 vs. 0.48, which is 13.43 percentage points (a relative improvement of about 27%); please clarify the reporting convention.
  4. [Table 6] The text in §5.1 says the Beta(10,10) scheme achieves 'the best IS (35.79)', which is consistent with the table, but the same row reports GA 56.86, which is lower than the 0.75/0.25 row (61.48); the discussion would benefit from explicitly acknowledging this trade-off.
  5. [References] References [14] and [15] are the same Stable Diffusion paper; please consolidate to avoid duplicate citation entries.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Caption retrieval in §3.3 searches the entire corpus, so the true test caption is in the candidate set; with contrastive alignment and class re-ranking the 'refined context' can be the answer key, making GA/IS/FID measure text-to-image from the target caption rather than EEG decoding.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3, Eq. (4); Section 4.1]
    "Given an EEG embedding eEEG ∈ Q (the query) and a collection of text embeddings X={e_text_1,...,e_text_n} of n caption embeddings belonging to the entire corpus, we retrieve the top-k most similar captions in the CLIP feature space ... Ground-truth captions are generated using Microsoft Florence-2 Large [25] to pair EEG signals with image descriptions for cross-modal alignment."

    Here X is not a held-out gallery: it is built from the Florence-2 captions of the whole dataset, and Section 4.1 says the provided train/validation/test splits are used, so the test image's own caption is among the n candidates. Eq. (2) explicitly pulls each EEG embedding toward its paired caption embedding, so the query's matching caption is a likely top-k neighbor; the class-guided re-ranking then selects it. The 'refined caption' is therefore the answer key retrieved by nearest-neighbor search, not a description decoded from EEG. Conditioning Stable Diffusion on this caption (Eq. 5 / §3.5) makes the reported GA/IS/FID measure retrieval plus text-to-image fidelity rather than EEG-to-image reconstruction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, bullet 2 (Class-Guided Re-ranking); Table 2]
    "This re-ranking step yields 6.99% higher Generation Accuracy (GA), 6.30% higher Inception Score (IS), and 3.43% lower Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) versus without re-ranking (see Table 2)."

    The ablation presents the re-ranking gain as a contribution of the framework, but both rows of Table 2 use the same candidate set X that contains the ground-truth caption. The GA increase (0.5307→0.5678) and FID decrease (86.08→83.13) can be explained by the class label moving the true caption to rank 1; no experiment excludes the true caption from the candidates or reports k. The claimed 6.99% GA improvement is thus a selection effect over an answer-containing list, not evidence that EEG signals supplied contextual cues.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section 3.4, Eq. (5); Section 3.5]
    "we interpolate the predicted concept embedding from our EEG classifier with the re-ranked caption embedding. Let eclass ∈ R768 be the CLIP-encoded class label predicted by the EEG Conformer, and etext ∈ R768 the top-ranked CLIP caption embedding. We sample λ∼Beta(α, β) and compute: z=λ eclass + (1−λ) etext ... we condition the denoising process on z by integrating it into the cross-attention mechanism of Stable Diffusion’s UNet."

    The conditioning vector z for Stable Diffusion is a convex combination of the predicted class embedding and e_text, where e_text is the top-ranked caption from the answer-containing gallery. Hence the generated image is conditioned on a near-exact text description of the target stimulus. The headline numbers (GA 0.5265 average, FID 80.29) therefore characterize the pre-trained text-to-image model operating on the dataset's own annotation, not the EEG decoder. This is the propagated consequence of the answer-key retrieval; only the classification accuracy (CA 61.09%) remains an independent EEG-decoding result.

full rationale

The paper's classification component is self-contained and benchmarked against prior classifiers, so the CA claim (61.09%) is not circular. However, the generation claims are not: §3.3 defines the retrieval pool as 'the entire corpus' of Florence-2 captions, and §4.1 confirms these captions are generated for all stimuli with provided train/validation/test splits, so the true test caption is in the pool. The contrastive alignment (Eq. 2) makes the true caption a likely top-k match, and the class re-ranking can place it first. No gallery exclusion, k value, or code is reported. Under these definitions, the 'predicted context' is selected from the answer key, and Eq. (5)/§3.5 feed it into Stable Diffusion, so GA/IS/FID measure annotation-conditioned text-to-image generation. This is a structural reduction of the central generation claim, not a question of author intent. Score 7 rather than 8 because the classification result is independent and the top-k size is unreported, leaving a small chance the correct caption is occasionally absent; but as written, the central generation metrics reduce by construction to retrieval from a labeled set.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method imports CLIP, Stable Diffusion, and Florence-2 from prior work. The only new components are retrieval and re-ranking, whose success depends on the gallery containing the right answer. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Beta interpolation parameters (alpha, beta) = 10, 10
    Chosen by hand; the ablation shows concept-heavy weights give higher GA but lower IS, so the Beta choice is a tunable prior, not derived.
  • Retrieval top-k = not specified
    The size of the candidate caption set is never given; it controls how often the correct caption is in the re-ranking pool, directly affecting GA.
  • Contrastive temperature tau = 0.07
    Standard CLIP value, selected rather than learned; affects the alignment training.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CLIP embedding space captures semantic similarity between EEG-derived embeddings and text captions.
    The whole alignment and retrieval relies on CLIP as a shared space, Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption Florence-2 generated captions are a valid ground-truth description of the visual stimulus.
    Captions are used as the alignment target; any bias in Florence-2 becomes the target.
  • ad hoc to paper The 55-95 Hz band contains the relevant visual information.
    This band is unusual for EEG visual decoding; most studies use lower frequencies. The choice is not justified.
  • domain assumption The provided EEG-ImageNet splits are unbiased and the test captions are independent.
    The paper never states whether the retrieval gallery excludes the test image's own caption, Section 3.3.
  • standard math Stable Diffusion pretrained weights generate images from CLIP text embeddings without additional fine-tuning.
    The generator is used as-is; its capabilities are assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CATVis: Context-Aware Thought Visualization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7MTYA7QL

@misc{pith2026250711522,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CATVis: Context-Aware Thought Visualization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7MTYA7QL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11522}
}
read the original abstract

EEG-based brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) have shown promise in various applications, such as motor imagery and cognitive state monitoring. However, decoding visual representations from EEG signals remains a significant challenge due to their complex and noisy nature. We thus propose a novel 5-stage framework for decoding visual representations from EEG signals: (1) an EEG encoder for concept classification, (2) cross-modal alignment of EEG and text embeddings in CLIP feature space, (3) caption refinement via re-ranking, (4) weighted interpolation of concept and caption embeddings for richer semantics, and (5) image generation using a pre-trained Stable Diffusion model. We enable context-aware EEG-to-image generation through cross-modal alignment and re-ranking. Experimental results demonstrate that our method generates high-quality images aligned with visual stimuli, outperforming SOTA approaches by 13.43% in Classification Accuracy, 15.21% in Generation Accuracy and reducing Fr\'echet Inception Distance by 36.61%, indicating superior semantic alignment and image quality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11522 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our proposed five-stage framework for reconstructing images from EEG signals. The numbered modules correspond to the key steps in the methodology [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cross-modal alignment of EEG and text embeddings via contrastive loss. We project EEG signals and captions into a joint representation space, where positive pairs (blue cells) are brought closer, and negative pairs (gray cells) are pushed apart. 1. Initial Retrieval. Given an EEG embedding e EEG ∈ Q (the query) and a collection of text embeddings X = {e text 1 , . . . , e text n } of n caption embeddings belonging t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Images generated from EEG signals using our framework. The images in red boxes are visual stimuli, followed by two corresponding generated samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence43(11), 3833–3849 (2020)

    Palazzo, S., Spampinato, C., Kavasidis, I., Giordano, D., Schmidt, J., Shah, M.: Decodingbrainrepresentationsbymultimodallearningofneuralactivityandvisual features. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence43(11), 3833–3849 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16934 (2023)

    Bai, Y., Wang, X., Cao, Y.p., Ge, Y., Yuan, C., Shan, Y.: Dreamdiffusion: Gener- ating high-quality images from brain eeg signals. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16934 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  3. [2]

    Sen- sors23(14), 6434 (2023)

    Chaddad, A., Wu, Y., Kateb, R., Bouridane, A.: Electroencephalography signal processing: A comprehensive review and analysis of methods and techniques. Sen- sors23(14), 6434 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition

    Chen, Z., Qing, J., Xiang, T., Yue, W.L., Zhou, J.H.: Seeing beyond the brain: Conditional diffusion model with sparse masked modeling for vision decoding. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition. pp. 22710–22720 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    ICLR (2021)

    Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., Uszkoreit, J., Houlsby, N.: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. ICLR (2021)

    2021

  6. [5]

    In: ICLR 2024 Workshop on Learning from Time Series For Health (2024)

    Ferrante, M., Boccato, T., Bargione, S., Toschi, N.: Decoding eeg signals of vi- sual brain representations with a clip based knowledge distillation. In: ICLR 2024 Workshop on Learning from Time Series For Health (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14871 (2023)

    Fu, H., Shen, Z., Chin, J.J., Wang, H.: Brainvis: Exploring the bridge between brain and visual signals via image reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14871 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems14(2), 348–365 (2022)

    Gong, S., Xing, K., Cichocki, A., Li, J.: Deep learning in eeg: Advance of the last ten-year critical period. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems14(2), 348–365 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/TCDS.2021.3079712 10 T. Mehmood et al

    arXiv 2022

Show all 25 references
  1. [8]

    Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

    Heusel,M.,Ramsauer,H.,Unterthiner,T.,Nessler,B.,Hochreiter,S.:Ganstrained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium. Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

    2017

  2. [9]

    In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM interna- tional conference on Multimedia

    Kavasidis, I., Palazzo, S., Spampinato, C., Giordano, D., Shah, M.: Brain2image: Converting brain signals into images. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM interna- tional conference on Multimedia. pp. 1809–1817 (2017)

    2017

  3. [10]

    IEEE Access6, 30630–30652 (2018)

    Mannan, M.M.N., Kamran, M.A., Jeong, M.Y.: Identification and removal of phys- iological artifacts from electroencephalogram signals: A review. IEEE Access6, 30630–30652 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2842082

    2018

  4. [11]

    Neural Computing and Applications 35(12), 9181–9192 (2023)

    Mishra, R., Sharma, K., Jha, R.R., Bhavsar, A.: Neurogan: image reconstruction from eeg signals via an attention-based gan. Neural Computing and Applications 35(12), 9181–9192 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    In: International conference on machine learning

    Radford, A., Kim, J.W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al.: Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 8748–8763. PMLR (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., Ommer, B.: High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 10684–10695 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., Ommer, B.: High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 10684– 10695 (June 2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Advances in neural information processing systems29(2016)

    Salimans, T., Goodfellow, I., Zaremba, W., Cheung, V., Radford, A., Chen, X.: Improved techniques for training gans. Advances in neural information processing systems29(2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision

    Singh, P., Dalal, D., Vashishtha, G., Miyapuram, K., Raman, S.: Learning ro- bust deep visual representations from eeg brain recordings. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision. pp. 7553–7562 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    In: ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)

    Singh,P.,Pandey,P.,Miyapuram,K.,Raman,S.:Eeg2image:imagereconstruction from eeg brain signals. In: ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). pp. 1–5. IEEE (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering31, 710–719 (2023)

    Song, Y., Zheng, Q., Liu, B., Gao, X.: Eeg conformer: Convolutional transformer for eeg decoding and visualization. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering31, 710–719 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE. 2022.3230250

    2023

  12. [20]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Spampinato, C., Palazzo, S., Kavasidis, I., Giordano, D., Souly, N., Shah, M.: Deep learning human mind for automated visual classification. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 6809–6817 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J., Wojna, Z.: Rethinking the in- ception architecture for computer vision. 2015. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.00567 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM international conference on Multimedia

    Tirupattur, P., Rawat, Y.S., Spampinato, C., Shah, M.: Thoughtviz: Visualizing human thoughts using generative adversarial network. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM international conference on Multimedia. pp. 950–958 (2018) CATVis: Context-Aware Thought Visualization 11

    2018

  15. [23]

    IEEE Access9, 125778–125786 (2021)

    Vallabhaneni,R.B.,Sharma,P.,Kumar,V.,Kulshreshtha,V.,Reddy,K.J.,Kumar, S.S., Kumar, V.S., Bitra, S.K.: Deep learning algorithms in eeg signal decoding application: A review. IEEE Access9, 125778–125786 (2021). https://doi.org/10. 1109/ACCESS.2021.3105917

    2021

  16. [24]

    Sensors22(9), 3331 (2022)

    Värbu, K., Muhammad, N., Muhammad, Y.: Past, present, and future of eeg-based bci applications. Sensors22(9), 3331 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Xiao, B., Wu, H., Xu, W., Dai, X., Hu, H., Lu, Y., Zeng, M., Liu, C., Yuan, L.: Florence-2: Advancing a unified representation for a variety of vision tasks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 4818–4829 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.