ArticleScientific reports2025
A direct comparison of simultaneously recorded scalp, around-ear and in-ear EEG for neural selective auditory attention decoding to speech.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Selective Listening to Brain-Controlled Hearing: A Perspective on the Future of Auditory Technology.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026Review
- Closing the Loop on the Cocktail Party Effect: From Attention Decoding to Neuro-Steered Selective Hearing.Biology · 2026Article
- Recent Progress in In-Ear EEG Technology and Its Emerging Real-World Applications: A Review.Micromachines · 2026Review
- A direct comparison of simultaneously recorded scalp, around-ear and in-ear EEG for neural selective auditory attention decoding to speech.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Current assistive hearing devices, such as hearing aids and cochlear implants, lack the ability to adapt to the listener's focus of auditory attention, limiting their effectiveness in complex acoustic environments like cocktail party scenarios where multiple conversations occur simultaneously. Neuro-steered hearing devices aim to overcome this limitation by decoding the listener's auditory attention from neural signals, such as electroencephalography (EEG). While many auditory attention decoding (AAD) studies have used high-density scalp EEG, such systems are impractical for daily use as they are bulky and uncomfortable. Therefore, AAD with wearable and unobtrusive EEG systems that are comfortable to wear and can be used for long-term recording are required. Around-ear EEG systems like cEEGrids have shown promise in AAD, but in-ear EEG, recorded via custom earpieces offering superior comfort, remains underexplored. We present a new AAD dataset with simultaneously recorded scalp, around-ear, and in-ear EEG, enabling a direct comparison. Using a classic linear stimulus reconstruction algorithm, a significant performance gap between all three systems exists, with AAD accuracies of 83.4% (scalp EEG), 67.2% (around-ear EEG), and 61.1% (in-ear EEG) on 60s decision windows. These results highlight the trade-off between decoding performance and practical usability. Yet, while the ear-based EEG systems using basic algorithms might currently not yield accurate enough performances for a decision speed-sensitive application in hearing aids, their significant performance suggests potential for attention monitoring on longer timescales. Furthermore, adding an external reference or a few scalp electrodes via greedy forward selection substantially and quickly boosts accuracy by over 10 percent point, especially for in-ear EEG. These findings position in-ear EEG as a promising component in EEG sensor networks for AAD.
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.