ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Towards continuous brain monitoring: a pilot qualitative study of user experiences with in-ear EEG.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In-ear electroencephalography (EEG) is an emerging form of wearable neurotechnology that offers the potential for continuous and unobtrusive brain monitoring outside traditional clinical settings. While technical feasibility has been demonstrated across applications including seizure detection, sleep monitoring, and cognitive assessment, little is known about how users experience and perceive this technology. This pilot study aimed to explore user experiences of in-ear EEG and identify factors influencing its acceptability and adoption. Method: A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with ten participants following exposure to an in-ear EEG device. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using an inductive approach guided by Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Five interrelated themes were identified: embodied acceptability, pragmatic usability, reframing EEG from clinical procedure to personal technology, conditional adoption, and future integration into everyday life. Participants described the device as comfortable, unobtrusive, and comparable to familiar consumer technologies such as earbuds. Compared with conventional scalp EEG, in-ear EEG was viewed as more flexible, discreet, and compatible with everyday activities. However, willingness to adopt the technology remained conditional on demonstrating clinical accuracy comparable to traditional EEG systems. Participants also anticipated applications in long-term and ambulatory monitoring. Discussion: In-ear EEG was perceived as a highly acceptable and practical form of wearable brain monitoring. Adoption appeared to be facilitated by familiarity and integration into everyday life, but remained dependent on confidence in diagnostic performance. These findings highlight the importance of combining technical validation with user-centred design to support implementation of wearable neurotechnology and real-world monitoring of brain function.
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.