Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.04113

Multimodal Physiological Decoding Reveals Individualized Arousal Dynamics in Closed-Loop Neurofeedback

Anirudh Natarajan·Paul Sajda
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Most arousal-based brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) use EEG to decode cognitive state. But arousal is an autonomic process. We examined if peripheral physiological signals give a better decode of task-related arousal. We used a public dataset from a difficult boundary-avoidance flight task. In this task, participants received EEG-based BCI neurofeedback, sham feedback, or no feedback. We trained a multimodal deep learning decoder on heart rate, heart rate variability (HRV), respiration, electrodermal activity, and pupil diameter. We compared it with an EEG-only decoder and with the original filter-bank common spatial pattern (FBCSP) decoder. All analyses were offline. The peripheral decoder had a within-subject AUC of 93.0%. The EEG-only decoder had 85.2% and the FBCSP decoder had 79.8%. Only the peripheral decoder showed the Yerkes-Dodson inverted-U relation between decoded arousal and performance. The feedback conditions did not change the arousal trajectories. Thus, the BCI benefit possibly comes from regulation at critical moments in the task, not from a continuous shift. We calculated a time-varying optimal arousal trajectory from control trials. Per-trial deviations from this trajectory predicted performance (r = -0.28 to -0.24, p < 0.01). Baseline HRV and gamma power changed the arousal-performance curve of each subject. We used these values to divide subjects into arousal-sensitive and arousal-tolerant groups. Control bands specific to each group increased trial separation (Cohen's d from 1.21 to 1.32 and from 0.85 to 1.10). These results show that peripheral signals are better than EEG for continuous arousal decoding. They also give a specification for individualized closed-loop arousal regulation. A prospective study must test this specification, for example with personalized transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation.

Explore related subjects

q-bio.NC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Anirudh Natarajan, Paul Sajda. 2026-10-02. Multimodal Physiological Decoding Reveals Individualized Arousal Dynamics in Closed-Loop Neurofeedback. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04113

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Stimulus symmetries can confound representational similarity analyses

What can representational similarity matrices (RSMs) tell us about a neural code? As the popularity of these summary statistics grows, so too does the need for a more complete characterization of their properties. Here, we show that symmetries in network inputs can confound RSM-based analyses. Stimulus symmetries render many representations functionally equivalent, but these different configurations can lead to different RSMs. These different RSMs reflect qualitatively different representational geometries, ranging from disentangled to maximally-mixed codes. We show that stochastic gradient descent or energetic regularization can generate sparse, drifting codes, leading in turn to drifting RSMs. Moreover, we demonstrate that these phenomena are present in networks trained to encode image data, where the symmetry is latent. Our results illustrate the challenges inherent in comparing nonlinear neural codes, when functionally-equivalent representations are not related by a simple rotation.

q-bio.NC↗
arXiv2026

A theory of plasticity: capacity for change as inverse configurational constraint

Plasticity is invoked across the sciences to explain how systems can change, yet it is inferred from the very change it is meant to explain. A system may have many alternatives, realize none and still be plastic. Another may be driven far toward its only alternative, but the magnitude of that change does not establish its plasticity. What matters for plasticity is not how far the system moves but how strongly its present configuration constrains alternatives. Here I propose that plasticity, understood as a prospective property, is inverse configurational constraint: a system is plastic to the extent that its present configuration weakly constrains displacement toward alternatives within a declared representation. For systems sharing a functional partition, structural representation, and normalized architecture, increasing plasticity lowers every positive finite structural barrier separating the current state from its alternatives. With a fixed accessibility criterion, the accessible repertoire can expand but cannot shrink. In network representations, aggregate coupling is identified as configurational constraint, whose inverse defines plasticity. Barrier reduction and repertoire nesting are consequences, not components, of the definition. This connects two research traditions: quantifying connectivity without interpreting it as plasticity, and treating plasticity as a capacity for change without a prospective operational measure.

q-bio.NC↗
arXiv2026

Contrastive Neural Embeddings Reveal Individual Traits Beyond Conversational Role

Contrastive representation learning is increasingly used to recover low-dimensional structure from neural recordings, but its output is typically validated by decoding accuracy rather than by the geometry of the manifold it produces. We apply CEBRA to EEG recorded from dyads in conversation, and analyze the resulting embedding, which training constrains to the 2D sphere. Labels describing the dyads, including the absolute difference between partners' autism-quotient scores, decode well above chance (0.77 against a 0.55 majority baseline for binary AQ magnitude; 0.44 against 0.25 for the six-class $|Δ$AQ$|$ partition). However, the two permutation controls have notable differences in results: permuting labels over a frozen embedding yields p = 0.001, whereas retraining the encoder under each permutation yields p = 0.50. Only the latter tests the label rather than the geometry. Consistent with this, spherical mixture structure and per-class dispersion track identity rather than autism trait differences in dyads; frequency-band and non-oscillatory activity ablation controls do not change the results. However, participant-level model does separate from its identity-aware null (p = 0.0099) while speaker-versus-listener role analysis performs at chance in the same embedding, indicating a manifold organized by individual -- and, in contrast with current neurolinguistics models, almost invariant to speaking vs. listening. Based on these results, we suggest that retraining-based nulls should be the default for grouped-data contrastive embeddings.

q-bio.NC↗