ArticleScientific reports2025
A direct comparison of laboratory and community EEG recordings for neurodevelopmental research.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Leveraging portable electroencephalography (EEG) to measure brain function in community settings offers a promising strategy to improve the scalability and accessibility of developmental neuroscience research. To encourage broader adoption of these methods, it is important to demonstrate that data quality and neural signal integrity are comparable to gold-standard lab-based recordings. In this study, we directly compared EEG data collected in laboratory and home environments using portable EEG systems in a developmentally diverse group of young children under four years of age (n = 10). Despite differences in equipment and setting, our results showed comparable data quality and signal characteristics across conditions. Specifically, EEG data retention rates, noise levels, and spectral power measures were highly consistent at the group level, with no systematic differences between lab- and home-based recordings. To assess individual-level consistency, we calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for spectral power across brain regions and frequency bands. Most region-by-band combinations showed good to excellent consistency across settings; however, lower consistency was observed for some lower-frequency metrics, such as delta power in parietal regions. This suggests that certain individual features may be more sensitive to contextual or developmental factors. Overall, our findings demonstrate that portable, community-based EEG maintains data quality and neural signal integrity comparable to laboratory systems. Broader use of portable EEG may enhance scalability, increase participation, and promote greater inclusion in neurodevelopmental research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.