1. Figure 3 presents EEG topography plots for both the input and output during the EEG token quantization process, leading to some ambiguity in interpretation. I would recommend the authors to elucidate this procedure in greater detail. Specifically, it would be insightful to understand whether the spatial arrangement of the EEG sensors played any role in this process.
2. The manuscript introduces BELT-2 as a progression from the prior BELT-1 model. However, the discussion and distinction between the two models are somewhat scanty, especially given their apparent similarities. It would be of immense value if the authors could elaborate on the design improvements made in BELT-2 over BELT-1. A focused discussion highlighting the specific enhancements and their contribution to the performance improvements, as showcased in Table 1 and Table 4, would add depth to the paper.
3. A few inconsistencies are observed in the formatting of the tables, which might be distracting for readers. I'd kindly suggest revisiting and refining the table presentation to ensure a consistent and polished format.
4. In Figure 4 and Section 2.4, there is a mention of utilizing the mediate layer coding as 'EEG prompts'. The concept, as presented, leaves some gaps in understanding, primarily because its introduction and visualization seem absent or not explicitly labeled in the preceding figures and method sections. It would enhance coherence and clarity if the authors could revisit Figures 2 and/or 3 and annotate the specific parts illustrating this mediate layer coding.
1. Figure 3 presents EEG topography plots for both the input and output during the EEG token quantization process, leading to some ambiguity in interpretation. I would recommend the authors to elucidate this procedure in greater detail. Specifically, it would be insightful to understand whether the spatial arrangement of the EEG sensors played any role in this process.