Comparative Analysis of Ear Electroencephalography (Ear-EEG) and Scalp Electroencephalography (Scalp-EEG) in Wearable Brain-computer Interfaces

Authors

  • Yuhan He

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54691/137msa93

Keywords:

Ear-EEG; Scalp-EEG; Brain–Computer Interface (BCI); Neural signal monitoring; Wearable neurotechnology.

Abstract

This paper compares and analyzes ear-based electroencephalography (Ear-EEG) and scalp-based electroencephalography (Scalp-EEG) in wearable brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) to examine how signal fidelity, robustness, and usability are balanced. The study evaluates signal quality (event-related potentials ERP, signal-to-noise ratio SNR), resistance to motion artifacts, comfort, wearability, and practical applicability. The results indicate that, despite moderate signal attenuation (amplitude loss of 21% to 44% compared to optimized Scalp-EEG) and limited spatial coverage (1–6 channels), Ear-EEG still achieves clinically relevant sensitivity for key auditory ERP components (Hedges' *g* = 0.25–0.77) and alpha-band oscillations. Ear-EEG has inherent resistance to ocular artifacts but is highly sensitive to interference from jaw/head movements. In terms of usability metrics, Ear-EEG significantly outperforms Scalp-EEG: the dry electrode design supports over 40 hours of continuous wear with minimal discomfort (only approximately 15% of users reported noticeable foreign body sensation), can be self-installed within 5 minutes, and has approximately 45% higher social acceptability. However, Scalp-EEG still holds advantages in whole-brain coverage, high-fidelity tasks (such as N400 semantic decoding), and motion robustness during walking (no artifacts at 3.0 km/h). Additionally, this paper demonstrates the feasibility of Ear-EEG for mobile, long-term monitoring applications (such as sleep tracking and epilepsy detection), while also clarifying the unique application scenarios where Scalp-EEG remains irreplaceable.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Mihai, A.S.; Geman, O.; Toderean, R.; Miron, L.; SharghiLavan, S. The Next Frontier in Brain Monitoring: A Comprehensive Look at In-Ear EEG Electrodes and Their Applications. Sensors 2025, 25(11), 3321. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25113321

[2] Meiser, A.; Bleichner, M.G. Ear-EEG compares well to cap-EEG in recording auditory ERPs: a quantification of signal loss. J. Neural Eng. 2022, 19(2), 026042. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-2552/ac5fcb

[3] Mikkelsen, K.B.; Kappel, S.L.; Mandic, D.P.; Kidmose, P. EEG Recorded from the Ear: Characterizing the Ear-EEG Method. Front. Neurosci. 2015, 9, 438. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2015.00438/full

[4] Kappel, S.L.; Looney, D.; Mandic, D.P.; Kidmose, P. Physiological artifacts in scalp EEG and ear-EEG. BioMed. Eng. OnLine 2017, 16, 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-017-0391-2

[5] Nathan, K.; Contreras-Vidal, J.L. Negligible Motion Artifacts in Scalp Electroencephalography (EEG) During Treadmill Walking. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2016, 9, 708. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26793089/

[6] Athavipach, C.; Pan-ngum, S.; Israsena, P. A Wearable In-Ear EEG Device for Emotion Monitoring. Sensors 2019, 19(18), 4014. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19184014

[7] Lombardi, I.; Buono, M.; Giugliano, G.; Senese, V.P.; Capece, S. Usability and Acceptance Analysis of Wearable BCI Devices. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(7), 3512. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15073512

Published

22-09-2025

Issue

Section

Articles