ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Signal-specific performance of in-ear EEG: strengths and limitations.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fully in-ear Electroencephalography (EEG) configurations prioritize wearability and rapid setup but may constrain spatial sampling and signal-to-noise characteristics. We conducted a domain-specific evaluation of a generic-fit, fully intra-auricular dry-electrode EEG system benchmarked against simultaneous 32-channel BioSemi scalp EEG in 19 healthy adults. Rather than testing equivalence, we mapped strengths and boundary conditions across (i) resting-state alpha modulation (eyes open vs. eyes closed), (ii) auditory event-related-potentials (ERP; N1-P2 complex), and (iii) alpha ERSP during speech-in-noise. The in-ear configuration robustly captured canonical resting-state alpha increases during eyes-closed periods, despite reduced absolute amplitude relative to scalp EEG. In contrast, reliable N1-P2 responses were observed only in conventionally average-referenced scalp EEG; in-ear and adapted referencing configurations showed reduced component detectability with lower component SNR. During speech-in-noise, significant alpha ERSP deviations from baseline emerged in scalp EEG under less adverse listening conditions, whereas comparable deviations were not consistently detected in the minimal in-ear configuration. These findings indicate that signal detectability depends strongly on signal class, effect size, and recording geometry, providing configuration-aware guidance for study design and future in-ear EEG development.
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.