🤖 AI Summary
To address performance degradation in few-shot cross-dataset P300 EEG classification caused by source–target domain distribution shift, this paper proposes a backbone-agnostic adaptive domain adaptation framework. Methodologically, it introduces: (1) adaptive segmented Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) alignment using a parameter-free logarithmic-layer MMD and median-heuristic RBF kernel; (2) target-weighted loss coupled with split-domain batch normalization (Split-BN) sharing affine parameters; and (3) end-to-end training via EEG Conformer architecture with square-root-scaled learning rate warmup. Evaluated on Active Visual Oddball and ERP CORE P3 datasets, the method achieves accuracies of 0.66 and 0.61, and AUCs of 0.74 and 0.65, respectively—significantly outperforming both target-only and mixed-training baselines. Ablation studies confirm the efficacy of each component.
📝 Abstract
Detecting single-trial P300 from EEG is difficult when only a few labeled trials are available. When attempting to boost a small target set with a large source dataset through transfer learning, cross-dataset shift arises. To address this challenge, we study transfer between two public visual-oddball ERP datasets using five shared electrodes (Fz, Pz, P3, P4, Oz) under a strict small-sample regime (target: 10 trials/subject; source: 80 trials/subject). We introduce Adaptive Split Maximum Mean Discrepancy Training (AS-MMD), which combines (i) a target-weighted loss with warm-up tied to the square root of the source/target size ratio, (ii) Split Batch Normalization (Split-BN) with shared affine parameters and per-domain running statistics, and (iii) a parameter-free logit-level Radial Basis Function kernel Maximum Mean Discrepancy (RBF-MMD) term using the median-bandwidth heuristic. Implemented on an EEG Conformer, AS-MMD is backbone-agnostic and leaves the inference-time model unchanged. Across both transfer directions, it outperforms target-only and pooled training (Active Visual Oddball: accuracy/AUC 0.66/0.74; ERP CORE P3: 0.61/0.65), with gains over pooling significant under corrected paired t-tests. Ablations attribute improvements to all three components.