Wireless EEG: A survey of systems and studies
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".