ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Brain Wearables: Validation Toolkit for Ear-Level EEG Sensors.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic evaluation of EEG electrode geometry for enhanced signals: an experimental approach.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- In-ear EEG wearables for brain activity assessment and cognitive rehabilitation: the emerging role of multimodal embedded intelligence.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
- The Next Frontier in Brain Monitoring: A Comprehensive Look at In-Ear EEG Electrodes and Their Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Evaluating the Electroencephalographic Signal Quality of an In-Ear Wearable Device.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Signal quality evaluation of an in-ear EEG device in comparison to a conventional cap system.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
EEG-enabled earbuds represent a promising frontier in brain activity monitoring beyond traditional laboratory testing. Their discrete form factor and proximity to the brain make them the ideal candidate for the first generation of discrete non-invasive brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). However, this new technology will require comprehensive characterization before we see widespread consumer and health-related usage. To address this need, we developed a validation toolkit that aims to facilitate and expand the assessment of ear-EEG devices. The first component of this toolkit is a desktop application ("EaR-P Lab") that controls several EEG validation paradigms. This application uses the Lab Streaming Layer (LSL) protocol, making it compatible with most current EEG systems. The second element of the toolkit introduces an adaptation of the phantom evaluation concept to the domain of ear-EEGs. Specifically, it utilizes 3D scans of the test subjects' ears to simulate typical EEG activity around and inside the ear, allowing for controlled assessment of different ear-EEG form factors and sensor configurations. Each of the EEG paradigms were validated using wet-electrode ear-EEG recordings and benchmarked against scalp-EEG measurements. The ear-EEG phantom was successful in acquiring performance metrics for hardware characterization, revealing differences in performance based on electrode location. This information was leveraged to optimize the electrode reference configuration, resulting in increased auditory steady-state response (ASSR) power. Through this work, an ear-EEG evaluation toolkit is made available with the intention to facilitate the systematic assessment of novel ear-EEG devices from hardware to neural signal acquisition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.