ArticlePeerJ2026
Evaluating portable EEG: a comparison between two wireless systems (EPOC Flex and LiveAmp) and the wired BrainAmp system.
Article in PeerJ, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recent advances in equipment miniaturization have led to low-cost, portable electroencephalography (EEG) systems that facilitate data collection in real-world settings and with larger samples. Although wireless EEG systems were originally developed for non-research applications, recent studies have provided valuable information to help researchers make informed choices, particularly about participant comfort, mobility during recordings, and data validity. This study aimed to assess the impact of portability by comparing the performance of portable consumer- and research-grade systems (EPOC Saline Flex, EM; LiveAmp, LA) with fixed research-grade systems (BrainAmp, BA). Method: Continuous EEG was recorded with each system in healthy adults performing five benchmark tasks in fundamental and clinical cognitive neuroscience. Mental states (alpha power variations in open/closed eyes) and unconscious perception (steady-state visual evoked potential, SSVEP) were analyzed through time/frequency methods, while active (N200 and P300 components during active listening and N170 component during face recognition) and passive cognitive processes (Mismatch negativity, MMN component during passive listening) were examined using time/amplitude analyses (event-related potential, ERPs). Our analyses compared system efficiency at native and equalized sampling rates and examined 100%, 75%, and 50% of the datasets to determine the required trial number for satisfactory signal quality. Results: Despite the smaller amount of signal retained for EM, all systems recorded the expected resting state alpha power decrease and SSVEP responses, with EM showing lower spectral effects ([EM < (LA≈BA)]). ERPs for active (N170, N200, P300) and passive (MMN) processes emerged across all systems, with EM and LA showing lower amplitudes only for N170 compared to BA. Furthermore, the dataset reduction resulted in a decreased N170 at P7 only for EM ([EM < LA < BA]). EM also exhibited shorter latencies for all ERPs except for MMN. Conclusion: This study provides concrete guidance for designing EEG experiments in real-world settings, with significant potential for investigating children and vulnerable populations. The efficiency of the three EEG systems is more influenced by task duration than sampling rates. A wireless EEG device, such as the EM, can effectively support both time/frequency and time/amplitude analyses in cognitive science, provided that the number of trials is sufficient and latencies are controlled.
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.