Recurrent (CNN) model on EEG data I'm wondering how to interpret a recurrent architecture in an EEG context. Specifically I'm thinking of this as a Recurrent CNN (as opposed to architectures like LSTM), but maybe it applies to other types of recurrent networks as well

When I read about R-CNNs, they're usually explained in image classification contexts. Theyre typically described as "learning over time" or "including the effect of time-1 on the current input"

This interpretation/explanation gets really confusing when working with EEG data. An example of an R-CNN being used on EEG data can be found here

Imagine I have training examples each consisting of a 1x512 array. This array captures a voltage reading for 1 electrode at 512 consecutive time points. If I use this as input to a Recurrent CNN (using 1D convolutions), the recurrent part of the model isn't actually capturing "time", right? (as would be implied by the descriptions/explanations discussed earlier) Because in this context time is already captured by the second dimension of the array

So with a setup like this, what does the recurrent part of the network actually allow us to model that a regular CNN can't (if not time)?

It seems to me that recurrent just means doing a convolution, adding the result to the original input, and convolving again. This gets repeated for x number of recurrent steps. What advantage does this process actually give?
The recurrent part of a network allows you, generally speaking, to model long and short term dependencies. So your model can have some sense of state. 

This is typically advantageous if you're using timeseries. For example, if you have data from a heart rate monitor and like to like to classify between resting, stress and recovering. If your datapoint says your heart rate is at 130, it depends on whether you are recovering from high loads or something else.

Edit: 
I forgotten your second question.


  It seems to me that recurrent just means doing a convolution, adding the result to the original input, and convolving again. This gets repeated for x number of recurrent steps. What advantage does this process actually give?


I could think off a few possible answers. By convoluting the recurrent part you kind of filtering it. So you get a cleaner signal and errors won't stack as much. Vanilla rnn suffer from exploding vanishing gradients, so this could be his approach to overcome it.
Furthermore, you are embedding your features within the rcnn, which can lead, as he stated, to more paths to exploit. Which makes it less prone to overfitting, thus more generalizable.