Back

A scoping review on the use of consumer-grade EEG devices for research

Sabio, J.; Williams, N.; McArthur, G.; Badcock, N. A.

2022-12-05 neuroscience
10.1101/2022.12.04.519056 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BACKGROUNDCommercial electroencephalography (EEG) devices have become increasingly available over the last decade. These devices have been used in a wide variety of fields ranging from engineering to cognitive neuroscience. PURPOSEThe aim of this study was to chart peer-review articles that used currently available consumer-grade EEG devices to collect neural data. We provide an overview of the research conducted with these relatively more affordable and user-friendly devices. We also inform future research by exploring the current and potential scope of consumer-grade EEG. METHODSWe followed a five-stage methodological framework for a scoping review that included a systematic search using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. We searched the following electronic databases: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore. We charted study data according to application (BCI, experimental research, validation, signal processing, and clinical) and location of use as indexed by the first authors country. RESULTSWe identified 916 studies that used data recorded with consumer-grade EEG: 531 were reported in journal articles and 385 in conference papers. Emotiv devices were most used, followed by the NeuroSky MindWave, OpenBCI, interaXon Muse, and MyndPlay Mindband. The most common use was for brain-computer interfaces, followed by experimental research, signal processing, validation, and clinical purposes. CONCLUSIONSConsumer-grade EEG has proven to be a useful tool for neuroscientific research and will likely continue to be used well into the future. Our study provides a comprehensive review of their application, as well as future directions for researchers who wish to use these devices.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.