Journals / Sakarya University Journal of Computer and Information Sciences / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 4

EEG-Based Schizophrenia Detection Under Subject-Wise Cross-Validation: A Multi-Method XAI Benchmark

Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This aggregate-level convergence, though weaker at the level of individual folds and models (see Section 4.5), provides evidence for the discriminative role of the right posterior temporal scalp region — overlying the superior temporal gyrus, a region critically implicated in auditory processing and auditory verbal hallucinations in schizophrenia, though scalp EEG cannot precisely localize the underlying cortical source.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study evaluates whether subject-wise cross-validation and multi-method explainability analysis can yield reproducible and neurophysiologically interpretable deep learning models for EEGbased schizophrenia detection.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Electroencephalography (EEG) offers a cost-effective and temporally precise window into cortical dynamics, yet deep learning models for EEG-based schizophrenia classification are frequently evaluated with segment-level cross-validation that allows participant-specific patterns to leak into test sets, yielding inflated accuracy estimates.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This aggregate-level convergence, though weaker at the level of individual folds and models (see Section 4.5), provides evidence for the discriminative role of the right posterior temporal scalp region — overlying the superior temporal gyrus, a region critically implicated in auditory processing and auditory verbal hallucinations in schizophrenia, though scalp EEG cannot precisely localize the underlying cortical source.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Deep learning · Electroencephalography · Explainable artificial intelligence

Abstract

This study evaluates whether subject-wise cross-validation and multi-method explainability analysis can yield reproducible and neurophysiologically interpretable deep learning models for EEGbased schizophrenia detection. Schizophrenia is a severe psychiatric disorder for which no objective neurophysiological biomarker is yet established for routine clinical use. Electroencephalography (EEG) offers a cost-effective and temporally precise window into cortical dynamics, yet deep learning models for EEG-based schizophrenia classification are frequently evaluated with segment-level cross-validation that allows participant-specific patterns to leak into test sets, yielding inflated accuracy estimates. This study presents a comprehensive framework combining three architecturally distinct deep learning models — EEGNet, a CNN-LSTM hybrid, and a patch-based EEG Transformer — with six explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods spanning gradient-based (Saliency, Integrated Gradients, DeepLIFT), game-theoretic (SHAP), activation-based (Grad-CAM), and perturbation-based (LIME) paradigms. All models are evaluated under strict subject-wise 5-fold cross-validation on the publicly available 84-participant resting-state EEG dataset from M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, supplemented by a multi-component regularization pipeline. The CNN-LSTM model achieved the highest classification accuracy of 0.8192±0.0543 and AUC-ROC of 0.8776±0.0906. Crucially, XAI analyses were conducted across all five cross-validation folds, yielding 6×3×5 = 90 attribution analyses (6 XAI methods × 3 architectures × 5 folds, corresponding to 15 trained model instances each evaluated under 6 XAI methods). This multi-fold XAI design revealed that the right posterior temporal electrode T6 was identified as the most discriminative channel at the grand-average level in three of the five cross-validation folds, with a grand-average importance score of 0.977. All three model architectures and five of the six XAI methods independently converged on T6 as the top-ranked channel across 5-fold averages; LIME, while identifying T6 among the most important channels, showed greater variability with F8 (right frontal) as its top-ranked channel, consistent with its perturbation-based nature. This aggregate-level convergence, though weaker at the level of individual folds and models (see Section 4.5), provides evidence for the discriminative role of the right posterior temporal scalp region — overlying the superior temporal gyrus, a region critically implicated in auditory processing and auditory verbal hallucinations in schizophrenia, though scalp EEG cannot precisely localize the underlying cortical source.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yavuz, B. Ç. (2026). EEG-Based Schizophrenia Detection Under Subject-Wise Cross-Validation: A Multi-Method XAI Benchmark. Sakarya University Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, Volume: 9 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.35377/saucis...1917251

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (36)

  1. N. N. Gorbachevskaya and S. Borisov, “EEG data of healthy adolescents and adolescents with symptoms of schizophrenia,” M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State Univ., Fac. Biol., Moscow, Russia, 2002. [Online]. Available: http://brain.bio.msu.ru/eeg_schizophrenia.htm
  2. V. J. Lawhern et al., “EEGNet: A compact convolutional neural network for EEG-based brain–computer interfaces,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 15, no. 5, Art. no. 056013, 2018, doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/aace8c. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/aace8c
  3. A. Vaswani et al., “Attention is all you need,” in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NeurIPS), vol. 30, 2017, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762
  4. S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, “A unified approach to interpreting model predictions,” in Proc. 31st Int. Conf. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NIPS), pp. 4768–4777, 2017, doi: 10.5555/3295222.3295230. [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3295222.3295230
  5. M. Sundararajan, A. Taly, and Q. Yan, “Axiomatic attribution for deep networks,” in Proc. 34th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. (ICML), pp. 3319–3328, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/sundararajan17a.html
  6. R. R. Selvaraju, M. Cogswell, A. Das, R. Vedantam, D. Parikh, and D. Batra, “Grad-CAM: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ICCV), pp. 618–626, 2017, doi: 10.1109/ICCV.2017.74. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2017.74
  7. K. Simonyan, A. Vedaldi, and A. Zisserman, “Deep inside convolutional networks: Visualising image classification models and saliency maps,” in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Learn. Represent. (ICLR), Workshop Track, 2014, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1312.6034. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1312.6034
  8. A. Shrikumar, P. Greenside, and A. Kundaje, “Learning important features through propagating activation differences,” in Proc. 34th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. (ICML), pp. 3145–3153, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/shrikumar17a.html
  9. M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin, “‘Why should I trust you?’: Explaining the predictions of any classifier,” in Proc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discovery Data Mining, pp. 1135–1144, 2016, doi: 10.1145/2939672.2939778. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939778
  10. J. Rahul, D. Sharma, L. D. Sharma, U. Nanda, and A. K. Sarkar, “A systematic review of EEG based automated schizophrenia classification through machine learning and deep learning,” Front. Hum. Neurosci., vol. 18, Art. no. 1347082, 2024, doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1347082. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2024.1347082
  11. C. Uyanık, A. Şengur, M. Salvi, R.-S. Tan, J. H. Tan, and U. R. Acharya, “Automated detection of neurological and mental health disorders using EEG signals and artificial intelligence: A systematic review,” WIREs Data Mining Knowl. Discovery, Art. no. e70002, 2025, doi: 10.1002/widm.70002. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.70002
  12. G. Brookshire et al., “Data leakage in deep learning studies of translational EEG,” Front. Neurosci., vol. 18, Art. no. 1373515, 2024, doi: 10.3389/fnins.2024.1373515. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2024.1373515
  13. H. T. Lee, H. R. Cheon, S. H. Lee, M. Shim, and H. J. Hwang, “Risk of data leakage in estimating the diagnostic performance of a deep-learning-based computer-aided system for psychiatric disorders,” Sci. Rep., vol. 13, Art. no. 17156, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-43542-8. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43542-8
  14. E. A. Paraschiv, L. Băjenaru, C. Petrache, O. Bica, and D. N. Nicolau, “AI-driven neuro-monitoring: Advancing schizophrenia detection and management through deep learning and EEG analysis,” Future Internet, vol. 16, no. 11, Art. no. 424, 2024, doi: 10.3390/fi16110424. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/fi16110424
  15. A. Al Mazroa, M. M. Eltahir, S. A. Ebad, F. A. Alotaibi, K. Venkatachalam, and J. Cho, “EEG-based schizophrenia diagnosis using deep learning with multi-scale and adaptive feature selection,” PeerJ Comput. Sci., vol. 11, Art. no. e2811, 2025, doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.2811. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.2811
  16. A. S. Jangde and G. K. Verma, “EEG-based schizophrenia classification using attention-integrated deep convolutional networks,” Psychiatry Res.: Neuroimaging, vol. 357, Art. no. 112138, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2026.112138. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2026.112138
  17. V. Milner Paul et al., “OGTCN-E-MGO: An optimized deep learning framework for EEG-based schizophrenia detection,” Phys. Eng. Sci. Med., 2026, doi: 10.1007/s13246-025-01695-y. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-025-01695-y
  18. A. Almadhor et al., “An interpretable XAI deep EEG model for schizophrenia diagnosis using feature selection and attention mechanisms,” Front. Oncol., vol. 15, Art. no. 1630291, 2025, doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1630291. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2025.1630291
  19. A. Jalan, D. Mishra, Marisha, and M. Gupta, “Diagnosis of schizophrenia using feature extraction from EEG signals based on Markov transition fields and deep learning,” Biomimetics, vol. 10, no. 7, Art. no. 449, 2025, doi: 10.3390/biomimetics10070449. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics10070449
  20. Y. Gordienko et al., “Effect of natural and synthetic noise data augmentation on physical action classification by brain–computer interface and deep learning,” Front. Neuroinformat., vol. 19, Art. no. 1521805, 2025, doi: 10.3389/fninf.2025.1521805. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2025.1521805
  21. Y. Liu, P. Xu, and S. Hu, “Resting-state gamma power in schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Front. Psychiatry, vol. 16, Art. no. 1731645, 2026, doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1731645. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1731645
  22. M. De Pieri et al., “Resting-state EEG and MEG gamma frequencies in schizophrenia: A systematic review and exploratory power-spectrum meta-analysis,” Schizophrenia, vol. 11, Art. no. 48, 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41537-025-00596-z. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-025-00596-z
  23. P. Adamczyk et al., “Aberrant information flow within resting-state triple network model in schizophrenia: An EEG effective connectivity study,” Psychiatry Res.: Neuroimaging, vol. 349, Art. no. 111985, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2025.111985. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2025.111985
  24. H. Thakkar, S. Jain, B. K. Singh, et al., “Deep learning-based identification of EEG biomarkers for schizophrenia using a two-stage spectral-spatial framework,” Discover Neurosci., vol. 20, Art. no. 13, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s13064-025-00212-x. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13064-025-00212-x
  25. C. Domingos et al., “Functional EEG connectivity in schizophrenia using ciPLV: Excess theta in centroparietal regions and disrupted frontotemporal networks,” Brain Behav., vol. 15, Art. no. e70370, 2025, doi: 10.1002/brb3.70370. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.70370
  26. S. Li et al., “Neurophysiological markers of auditory verbal hallucinations in patients with schizophrenia: An EEG microstates study,” Brain Topogr., vol. 38, Art. no. 29, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10548-025-01105-2. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10548-025-01105-2
  27. J. Zhang et al., “Brain structural and functional neuroimaging features associated with improved auditory hallucinations after real-time fMRI neurofeedback in schizophrenia,” Depress. Anxiety, vol. 2025, Art. no. 2848929, 2025, doi: 10.1155/da/2848929. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1155/da/2848929
  28. J. Zhang et al., “Alterations in frontotemporal cerebral activity specific to auditory verbal hallucination during verbal fluency task in schizophrenia: A fNIRS study,” Front. Neurol., vol. 16, Art. no. 1559564, 2025, doi: 10.3389/fneur.2025.1559564. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2025.1559564
  29. S. Prokop-Millar et al., “Predictive and mechanistic biomarkers of treatment response to transcranial magnetic stimulation in psychiatric and neurocognitive disorders, identified via TMS-EEG and resting-state EEG: A systematic review,” J. Affect. Disord., vol. 393, pt. A, Art. no. 120194, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2025.120194. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.120194
  30. A. M. Salih et al., “A perspective on explainable artificial intelligence methods: SHAP and LIME,” Adv. Intell. Syst., vol. 7, Art. no. 2400304, 2024, doi: 10.1002/aisy.202400304. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/aisy.202400304
  31. M. Skliarov, R. El Shawi, C. Dhaoui, and N. Ahmed, “A comparative evaluation of explainability techniques for image data,” Sci. Rep., vol. 15, Art. no. 25839, 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-25839-y. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-25839-y
  32. A. A. Noor, A. Manzoor, M. D. Mazhar Qureshi, M. A. Qureshi, and W. Rashwan, “Unveiling explainable AI in healthcare: Current trends, challenges, and future directions,” WIREs Data Mining Knowl. Discovery, Art. no. e70018, 2025, doi: 10.1002/widm.70018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.70018
  33. F. V. Farahani, K. Fiok, B. Lahijanian, W. Karwowski, and P. K. Douglas, “Explainable AI: A review of applications to neuroimaging data,” Front. Neurosci., vol. 16, Art. no. 906290, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fnins.2022.906290. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.906290
  34. D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” in Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Learn. Represent. (ICLR), 2015, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1412.6980. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1412.6980
  35. C. Szegedy, V. Vanhoucke, S. Ioffe, J. Shlens, and Z. Wojna, “Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), pp. 2818–2826, 2016, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2016.308. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.308
  36. N. Kokhlikyan et al., “Captum: A unified and generic model interpretability library for PyTorch,” arXiv:2009.07896, 2020, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2009.07896. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.07896