Back

Evaluation of PainWaive: A consumer-grade EEG headset for remotely delivered neu-rofeedback and monitoring in chronic pain

Chowdhury, N. S.; Rawsthorne, J.; Hesam-Shariati, N.; Quide, Y.; Mcintyre, A.; Restrepo, S.; Chen, K.; Lin, C.-T.; Newton-John, T.; Craig, A.; Middleton, J.; Jensen, M. P.; McAuley, J.; Gustin, S. M.

2026-03-13 neurology
10.64898/2026.03.05.26347650 medRxiv
Show abstract

Affordable home-based electroencephalography (EEG) headsets could widen access to EEG assessment, but require rigorous validation before research or clinical use. Here, we evaluated a custom-developed 2-channel sensorimotor headset (PainWaive) intended for remote neuro-feedback and longitudinal monitoring in chronic pain. Eighty participants (47 female; mean age 24.0 years, SD 7.9) completed two resting-state sessions with PainWaive and a research-grade 64-channel EEG system (LiveAmp), under eyes-open (EO) and eyes-closed (EC) conditions. Alpha, beta and theta power and peak alpha frequency (PAF) were derived from homologous sensorimotor channels (C1/C2). Relative reliability was quantified with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), absolute reliability with SEM%, and cross-device consistency with between-device ICCs and Pearson correlations of overall spectral shape. ICCs/correlations were interpreted using pre-specified thresholds: fair 0.20-0.39, moderate 0.40-0.59, good 0.60-0.79, excellent [≥]0.80. PainWaive and LiveAmp showed comparable absolute reliability across metrics (similar SEM%). Under EC, PainWaive reliability was excellent for alpha (0.81), theta (0.85) and PAF (0.94), and good for beta (0.72). Under EO, reliability was excellent for alpha (0.82), good for beta and PAF (0.61-0.72), and moderate for theta (0.59). Spectral-shape correlations between devices were excellent (r>0.90). Cross-device ICCs were good under EC for alpha/theta/PAF (ICC=0.66-0.77) though fair for beta (0.35). Under EO, ICCs were good for alpha (0.62), moderate for PAF (0.53), and fair for beta/theta (0.26-0.32). To assess performance under real-world use, we additionally analysed 2 clinical samples of individuals (total n = 8) with chronic pain who each completed 20 home-based neurofeedback sessions using PainWaive (160 sessions total). Within-session stability was good-to-excellent across metrics (ICCs>0.72). Overall, our findings suggest PainWaive is a reliable tool for the assessment of EEG metrics, supporting its use in research and clinical applications.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
2
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
38 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.2%
3
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
7.2%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 14%
6.8%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 28%
6.3%
6
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.9%
7
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.3%
8
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
9
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.3%
10
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
11
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
12
Epilepsia
49 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
13
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
14
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
34 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.9%
15
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
16
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
17
Brain Stimulation
112 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
18
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
19
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.5%
20
Clinical Neurophysiology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
21
Brain Sciences
52 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
22
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
23
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
24
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
25
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
26
Journal of Visualized Experiments
30 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
27
Cerebral Cortex
357 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.7%
29
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
30
Neurophotonics
37 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%