ArticleScientific reports2026
Validation of portable, semi-dry electrode-based electroencephalography device for its application in brain-computer interface solutions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, commercial lightweight electroencephalography (EEG) headsets are gaining popularity in neuroscience. These devices commonly utilize only a few dry electrodes in specific locations and signal quality is often inferior compared to that of their traditional counterparts. In this study, we wanted to assess the feasibility of portable, paste-less, passive electrode-based EEG headset MindRove vision (VSN) for laboratory use. Three paradigms were implemented for acquiring visual evoked potential (VEP), P300 event-related potential and motor execution task (ME) related cortical patterns. Measurements were taken by using VSN, with wet-electrode system mBrainTrain SMARTING applied as reference. The performance of the devices was assessed by using signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for VEP and P300 while support vector machine, random forest and convolutional neural network-based classifiers were fit to ME data. The SNRdB (i.e. SNR expressed in decibels) of VSN was greater for both VEP and P300, by a margin of 1.998 and 2.845 dB, respectively. There was a significant difference between VEP signal amplitude levels and SNRdB, P300 SNR and SNRdB in favor of VSN. Average accuracy of the sorters were 78.8% for VSN and 80.9% for SMARTING; the difference was not significant. The application of VSN is feasible for use in research besides qualitative exploration.
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.