ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
A Multidimensional Benchmark of Public EEG Datasets for Driver State Monitoring in Brain-Computer Interfaces.
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Dataset Fragmentation, Cognitive Variability, and Reproducibility Challenges in EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interfaces: A PRISMA-Based Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electroencephalography (EEG)-based brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) hold significant potential for enhancing driver safety through real-time monitoring of cognitive and affective states. However, the development of reliable BCI systems for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) depends on the availability of high-quality, publicly accessible EEG datasets collected during driving tasks. Existing datasets lack standardized parameters and contain demographic biases, which undermine their reliability and prevent the development of robust systems. This study presents a multidimensional benchmark analysis of seven publicly available EEG driving datasets. We compare these datasets across multiple dimensions, including task design, modality integration, demographic representation, accessibility, and reported model performance. This benchmark synthesizes existing literature without conducting new experiments. Our analysis reveals critical gaps, including significant age and gender biases, overreliance on simulated environments, insufficient affective monitoring, and restricted data accessibility. These limitations hinder real-world applicability and reduce ADAS performance. To address these gaps and facilitate the development of generalizable BCI systems, this study provides a structured, quantitative benchmark analysis of publicly available driving EEG datasets, suggesting criteria and recommendations for future dataset design and use. Additionally, we emphasize the need for balanced participant distributions, standardized emotional annotation, and open data practices.
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.