Wireless EEG: A survey of systems and studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The popular brain monitoring method of electroencephalography (EEG) has seen a surge in commercial attention in recent years, focusing mostly on hardware miniaturization. This has led to a varied landscape of portable EEG devices with wireless capability, allowing them to be used by relatively unconstrained users in real-life conditions outside of the laboratory. The wide availability and relative affordability of these devices provide a low entry threshold for newcomers to the field of EEG research. The large device variety and the at times opaque communication from their manufacturers, however, can make it difficult to obtain an overview of this hardware landscape. Similarly, given the breadth of existing (wireless) EEG knowledge and research, it can be challenging to get started with novel ideas. Therefore, this paper first provides a list of 48 wireless EEG devices along with a number of important-sometimes difficult-to-obtain-features and characteristics to enable their side-by-side comparison, along with a brief introduction to each of these aspects and how they may influence one's decision. Secondly, we have surveyed previous literature and focused on 110 high-impact journal publications making use of wireless EEG, which we categorized by application and analyzed for device used, number of channels, sample size, and participant mobility. Together, these provide a basis for informed decision making with respect to hardware and experimental precedents when considering new, wireless EEG devices and research. At the same time, this paper provides background material and commentary about pitfalls and caveats regarding this increasingly accessible line of research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it