EEG-based classification models reveal differential neural processing of words and images

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Background Machine learning methods employing neuroimaging data are useful for monitoring the activation of neural representations. Specifically, they can be used to discern the brain networks engaged in processing specific categories of items. This approach has been employed on neuroimaging data, including functional magnetic resonance imaging data and electroencephalography (EEG) data. New method Here, we present a task and an analytical pipeline for investigating category representations using EEG. Participants ( N = 30) viewed a series of images and words of objects belonging to five categories (Animals, Tools, Food, Scenes, and Vehicles) and responded when items from the same category were presented consecutively. Results We trained support vector machines on EEG data within participants and found that both image trials and word trials yielded significant category classification accuracy, with image trials achieving higher accuracy than word trials. When comparing categories in a pair-wise fashion, all pairs were statistically distinguishable for image trials, whereas only one pair was distinguishable for word trials. Parietal and Left Temporal electrodes contributed more to image classification than Frontal and Right Temporal electrodes. Category-specific activity patterns also generalized across participants for image trials. Comparison with existing methods Our data and analytic pipeline yielded high classification accuracies, primarily for image trials, providing support for the utility of EEG data for neural decoding. Conclusions These methods can be instrumental for exploring the activation and reactivation of neural representations at the category level during wakefulness and, potentially, during offline states.
Full text 1,929 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 3 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Background Machine learning methods employing neuroimaging data are useful for monitoring the activation of neural representations. Specifically, they can be used to discern the brain networks engaged in processing specific categories of items. This approach has been used predominantly with functional magnetic resonance imaging data, and more rarely with electroencephalography (EEG) data. New method Here, we present a task, an analytical pipeline, and a stimulus dataset for investigating category representations using EEG. Participants (N = 30) viewed a series of images and words of objects belonging to five categories (Animals, Tools, Food, Scenes, and Vehicles) and responded when items from the same category were presented consecutively.

Results

We trained support vector machines on EEG data within participants and found that both image trials and word trials yielded significant category classification accuracy, with image trials achieving higher accuracy than word trials. When comparing categories in a pair-wise fashion, all pairs were statistically distinguishable for image trials, whereas only one pair was distinguishable for word trials. Parietal and Left Temporal electrodes contributed more to image classification than Frontal and Right Temporal electrodes. Category-specific activity patterns also generalized across participants for image trials. Comparison with existing methods Our data and analytic pipeline yielded high classification accuracies, primarily for image trials, providing support for the utility of EEG data for neural decoding.

Conclusions

These methods can be instrumental for exploring the activation and reactivation of neural representations at the category level during wakefulness and, potentially, during offline states. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Footnotes Change in author order - the previous order was incorrect

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-22T02:00:06.705733+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0