Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41456250›Full record

ArticleBrain informatics2025

Beyond the lab: real-world benchmarking of wearable EEGs for passive brain-computer interfaces.

Ronca Vincenzo, Cecchetti Marianna, Capotorto Rossella, Di Flumeri Gianluca, Giorgi Andrea, Germano Daniele, Borghini Gianluca, Babiloni Fabio, Aricò Pietro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ronca VincenzoDepartment of Computer, Control, and Management Engineering "Antonio Ruberti", Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Rome, Italy. vincenzo.ronca@uniroma1.it.
Cecchetti MariannaDepartment of Computer, Control, and Management Engineering "Antonio Ruberti", Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Rome, Italy.
Capotorto RossellaDepartment of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic & Orthopedic Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Rome, Italy.
Di Flumeri GianlucaDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Regina Elena, 291, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Giorgi AndreaDepartment of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic & Orthopedic Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Rome, Italy.
Germano DanieleDepartment of Computer, Control, and Management Engineering "Antonio Ruberti", Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Rome, Italy.
Borghini GianlucaDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Regina Elena, 291, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Babiloni FabioDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, "Vittorio Erspamer", Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Rome, Italy.
Aricò PietroDepartment of Computer, Control, and Management Engineering "Antonio Ruberti", Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Rome, Italy.

Funding

Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione Contro Gli Infortuni sul Lavoro B83C24006240005Sapienza Università di Roma SAP_RICERCA_2024_TCI_ARICÒ_P_01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWearable EEG systems are increasingly used for brain-computer interface (BCI) applications beyond controlled laboratory environments. However, there is still limited evidence on their reliability in real-world cognitive monitoring, especially for deriving robust mental-state indicators. This study investigates the signal quality, computational stability, and neurometric consistency of two widely used consumer-grade EEG devices (Emotiv EPOC X and Muse S) compared to a validated research-grade system (Mindtooth Touch) during naturalistic tasks relevant to passive BCIs and brain-machine intelligence.

methodTwenty-four participants completed a multimodal protocol including video observation, multitasking under varying cognitive loads, and a simulated driving task. Each participant used all three EEG systems in a counterbalanced order to avoid any bias induced by the order. Signal quality was assessed through artefact analysis and Power Spectral Density (PSD) stability. Neurometrics, i.e., metrics related to specific mental and emotional states that can be extracted from EEG signal processing (workload, attention, vigilance, and approach-withdrawal) were extracted and compared across devices, conditions, and subjective reports of effort and comfort. FINDING: The research grade system demonstrated higher signal stability, fewer artefacts, and more consistent neurometric responses to cognitive variations, with high significant correlation with subjective measures. Post-processing improved data continuity in consumer devices, but neurometrics remained less sensitive to task demands and less aligned with subjective ratings. Each device reflected different trade-offs between data quality, usability, and cost.

conclusionResearch-grade systems remain more reliable for passive BCI applications requiring high-resolution cognitive state monitoring. Nevertheless, consumer-grade headsets may still be appropriate for exploratory studies or non-critical applications. This work highlights key trade-offs between signal quality, usability, and application goals, contributing to the broader integration of wearable neurotechnologies into brain-machine intelligence frameworks.

Indexed as

Biosignal processingElectroencephalographyHuman factorsWearable EEG

Identifiers

PMID41456250
PMCPMC12779824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.