Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 81 references

Neural Signatures Within and Between Chess Puzzle Solving and Standard Cognitive Tasks for Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Low-Cost Electroencephalography Study

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A consumer EEG headband can tell four cognitive tasks apart and track working-memory load, using only two forehead electrodes, at roughly twice the chance level.

desk verdict Honest feasibility study of the MUSE 2 with a genuinely novel chess-puzzle paradigm, but the cross-task classification claim rests on six participants and split-level CIs, not participant generalization. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07592 v2 pith:6EH3MVOY submitted 2025-05-12 cs.HC

Matthew Russell , Samuel Youkeles , William Xia , Kenny Zheng , Aman Shah , Robert J.K. Jacob This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords consumer-gradeEEGMUSE2cognitiveworkloadcross-taskclassificationchesspuzzlesbrain-computerinterfacespectralpowerrandomforest
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether a cheap, consumer-grade EEG headband — the MUSE 2, worn on the forehead — can tell different kinds of mental work apart from brain signals alone. The authors pair three established cognitive tasks (N-Back working memory, Stroop color-conflict, mental rotation) with a new ecological task: solving chess puzzles drawn from an open database of checkmate problems. They report that forehead spectral power differs significantly across all four tasks, that a classifier on seven band-power features identifies which task a person is doing at 49% macro F1 versus 25% chance, and that the same features track N-Back workload at 63% F1. If these claims hold, software that adapts to a user's cognitive state — tutoring pacing, alertness warnings, game difficulty — could run on a $250 off-the-shelf headband instead of a clinical EEG system.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a compact feature pipeline built for eventual real-time use: 1-second epochs from the AF7 and AF8 frontal probes, cleaned by an automated artifact-rejection step (AutoReject) followed by Artifact Subspace Reconstruction, transformed to the frequency domain with multitaper spectral estimation, and collapsed into seven log-transformed band-power features ($\theta$, $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$, $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$) averaged over the two electrodes. Linear mixed-effects models with participant and task-block random effects carry the statistical contrasts, while a random forest with grouped, subsampled Monte Carlo cross-validation — where whole trial blocks, not individual epochs, are split between training and test — carries the classification results. The same seven features feed both analyses, so an online BCI would only need the same band-power computation the offline study used.

What would settle it

Run the same four tasks with a wired headband connection and live signal-quality checks so that almost no epochs are lost, on a gender-balanced sample, and add one calculation to the existing data: whether per-block rejection rates alone can predict which task was being done. If rejection rate predicts task identity above chance, or if the 49% cross-task F1 and the chess $\beta$/$\gamma$ versus N-Back $\theta$/$\alpha$ contrasts disappear when only high-quality blocks are used, the reported neural signatures are artifacts of differential data quality rather than of the tasks themselves.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the MUSE 2's two frontal dry electrodes carry enough spectral information to distinguish both workload level and task identity. The statistical results show task-dependent frequency signatures: chess puzzle difficulty raises $\beta$ and $\gamma$ band power, N-Back workload raises $\theta$ and $\alpha$ power, the Stroop task shifts $\alpha_2$ and $\beta_2$, and mental rotation shows no measurable frontal workload gradient. Across tasks, significant power differences appear in every frequency band, with the strongest effects in the low bands ($\theta$, $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$), where chess and mental rotation cluster together above N-Back and Stroop. The predictive claim is that a random-forest classifier on seven log-transformed band-power features, trained with block-grouped and subsampled Monte Carlo cross-validation, reaches 49% macro F1 for four-way cross-task classification (25% chance) and 63% F1 for N-Back low-versus-high workload.

Load-bearing premise

The people and data segments that survived cleaning are representative of the tasks themselves: eight of thirty participants were dropped for heavy signal loss, only about 64% of each person's data was kept on average, and the cross-task group was all-male with just nine people (six in the classifier), so the brain differences reported could partly reflect which recordings were clean enough to keep rather than which task was being done.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A real-time BCI can identify which of several cognitive tasks a user is performing: the four-way classifier reaches 49% macro F1, roughly twice the 25% chance level, using only two frontal electrodes.
  • Working-memory load in the N-Back style is the one workload axis this device classifies reliably (63% F1), so adaptive pacing systems can treat it as a usable control signal.
  • Fine-grained difficulty sensing within chess puzzles, mental rotation, or the Stroop task is not supported by this device, since those within-task classifiers sit at or near chance.
  • The chess puzzle battery works as an ecological cognitive-load task: its difficulty gradient shows up as rising $\beta$ and $\gamma$ power at the forehead, consistent with effort-driven high-frequency activity.
  • Because chess and mental rotation share elevated $\theta$/$\alpha$ power relative to N-Back and Stroop, the headband is really tracking a visuospatial-engagement axis rather than a single general-purpose effort signal.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An untested prediction follows from the cross-task clustering: other visuospatial tasks, such as map reading or geometric reasoning, should separate from verbal or conflict tasks along the same $\theta$/$\alpha$ axis; the paper's own paradigm could check this without new hardware.
  • The paper does not run an obvious confound check: predicting task identity from per-block artifact-rejection rates alone. If such a predictor beats chance, part of the 49% cross-task figure is quality-by-task rather than brain-by-task.
  • The 49% number is best read as a proof of mechanism, not a population estimate: the cross-task machine-learning set has only six participants, all male, so the claim that survives is that the distinctions exist, not that they are exactly this strong in the general population.
  • The near-chance within-task results for mental rotation and Stroop are likely a resolution limit of two frontal channels rather than proof that the underlying states are indistinguishable; posterior electrodes or event-related-potential features, which the paper lists as future work, are the natural test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a low-cost EEG study using the MUSE 2 headband (AF7/AF8 probes) across four tasks: N-Back, Stroop, Mental Rotation, and a novel Chess puzzle task. Using linear mixed-effects models on log-transformed band power, the authors claim within-task workload distinctions (Chess in high-frequency bands, N-Back in theta/alpha, Stroop in alpha2/beta2, and null results for Rotation) and cross-task spectral differentiation across all frequency bands. Random-forest classification yields 63% macro F1 for N-Back workload, near-chance results for Chess, Rotation, and Stroop, and 49% macro F1 for four-way cross-task classification against a 25% chance level. The authors conclude that consumer-grade EEG can differentiate workload levels and more nuanced task-based cognitive states for BCI applications. The paper also contributes the Chess puzzle paradigm and promises open access to code and data, though the links are currently redacted.

Significance. The study asks a useful and timely question: whether a low-cost, four-channel EEG device can support BCI-style classification of cognitive workload and task states. The methods include good-faith efforts to handle autocorrelation in the EEG time series—block-grouped Monte Carlo cross-validation and per-participant random effects in the LMMs—and the novel Chess puzzle paradigm is a valuable addition to the ecological validity literature. If the cross-task classification result survives participant-level validation, it would be a meaningful proof-of-concept for consumer EEG. However, the load-bearing evidence for the cross-task claim currently rests on six participants with per-user training, and the abstract and conclusion overstate the within-task results given the null Rotation finding and the near-chance ML performance for three of the four tasks. The paper is best read as a promising feasibility study whose central claims need to be re-scoped and re-tested before publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-F and III-E] The exclusion of 8 of 30 participants with >=60% epoch loss, combined with a mean data inclusion rate of 64% and an all-male phase II sample, is load-bearing for both the within-task and cross-task claims. The manuscript itself notes that the clustering of exclusions suggests potential systematic factors in data collection, but it does not test whether the retained sample differs systematically from the excluded sample in task performance, task order, or connectivity-failure patterns. If data loss is not missing at random, the spectral differences reported in Tables 5-7 could reflect which participants and blocks survived filtering rather than true task or workload effects. Please add sensitivity analyses comparing retained and excluded participants, and re-run the central models with data-completeness covariates or per-participant summaries to show that the conclusions are not artifacts of selective retention.
  2. [Section III-K.3 and Table II] The four-way cross-task classifier is trained per user with 20% of each participant's blocks held out, so the reported 49% macro F1 quantifies how well the model classifies new blocks from the same six participants, not how well the MUSE 2 generalizes to new users or independent sessions. The 95% confidence interval [0.493, 0.495] is the spread over 1,000 random block splits and does not capture participant-level variability; with n=6 participants, and with each balanced test cell containing about 195 epochs, the participant-level uncertainty is much larger than the reported interval suggests. Please report per-participant F1 scores and a participant-level permutation test or leave-one-participant-out evaluation, and temper the abstract's cross-task claim accordingly.
  3. [Abstract and Sections IV-B/IV-D] The abstract's statement of 'successful distinctions of within-task workload levels' is not supported by the full set of results. Table 5 in the supplementary material shows no significant workload effect in any band for Mental Rotation (all p.adj = 0.926) and only one significant band for Stroop, while Table I shows Rotation and Stroop classifiers performing at chance. The discussion in Section IV-D already acknowledges these null results, so the abstract and conclusion should be rewritten to state that within-task workload differentiation was successful for N-Back, partially successful for Chess and Stroop, and unsuccessful for Rotation.
  4. [Section III-G and Table 1] The Chess workload labels are defined per participant as relative quartiles of the puzzle ratings that participant encountered, and the machine-learning analysis collapses levels 0-1 versus 2-3. This makes the workload construct relative rather than absolute: two participants with identical spectral power could receive different labels depending on the distribution of puzzles they encountered. The interpretability of the workload results, and of the cross-task comparison that ignores workload, should be discussed explicitly in light of this relative labelling and the non-significant N-Back 2-versus-3 reaction-time contrast reported in Section IV-A.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Data Availability] The Data Availability section lists both the code and the preprocessed datasets as 'REDACTED'; if this is a temporary anonymization measure for review, please ensure the final version provides working links, because the open-access contribution is stated as a key contribution in the Introduction and Conclusion.
  2. [Section IV-C and Table II] There are typographical issues in the text: 'ANOV A results (Table Table 6)' should read 'Table 6', and the Table II header appears as 'T ABLE II'. Please correct these.
  3. [Section IV-E] The confidence interval [0.493, 0.495] reported for the cross-task macro F1 is not a participant-level interval; please state explicitly in the text that it reflects Monte Carlo split variability only, as this is easily misread by readers.
  4. [Section III-F] The preprocessing description mentions interpolation by AutoReject and ASR reconstruction, but with only AF7 and AF8 channels it is unclear how sensor-space interpolation is performed with just two frontal probes; please clarify the practical implementation of these steps.
  5. [Section III-F2] The band delineations are attributed to reference [11], but the specific edges (e.g., alpha1 at 8-11 Hz, gamma2 at 40-45 Hz) and the use of Simpson integration should be stated directly in the methods text for self-containedness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical EEG study with block-level out-of-sample ML and externally defined cognitive-task labels.

full rationale

This is an empirical measurement and classification study, not a derivation whose outputs are equivalent to its inputs by construction. The central labels are defined externally to the EEG data: N-Back difficulty by the n-back level, Rotation by angular disparity, Stroop by congruency, and Chess by the lichess Glicko2 rating quartiles encountered by each participant. The machine-learning evaluation is out-of-sample at the block level: Section III-K1 states that 'any given block of trials taken together will only be either in the test or training set,' and the training and test sets are created by splitting 20% of each participant's blocks, subsampling to balance classes, and scaling only with training-set statistics. The reported cross-task macro F1 of 49% versus 25% chance is therefore a genuine held-out-block result, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper itself acknowledges the main limitations that could affect interpretation — small sample size, uneven gender distribution, a cross-task ML set of only 6 participants, and substantial data loss with a mean per-participant inclusion rate of 64% — but these are external-validity and sampling concerns, not circularity. The Chess workload labels are per-participant relative quartiles, which weakens absolute difficulty interpretation but does not make the EEG contrast definitional. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears; citations to prior MUSE validation are independent empirical support. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The study introduces no theoretical entities. Its central claims rest on domain assumptions about the sufficiency of two frontal EEG channels, the transfer of ASR artifact models from rest to task data, the validity of Lichess Glicko2 ratings as difficulty labels, and the representativeness of a small sample after substantial data loss. Methodological hand choices include the 60% data-loss exclusion threshold and the low/high workload binarization.

free parameters (3)
  • Data-loss exclusion threshold = 60% epochs excluded
    Participants with at least 60% of epochs excluded (n=8) were dropped from all analyses; this post hoc threshold shapes the final dataset and is a hand-chosen modeling decision (Section III-F).
  • Workload binarization cutoff for ML = levels 0-1 -> low, 2-3 -> high
    Four-level labels were collapsed into binary classes for all machine-learning tasks, an author choice that trades granularity for sample size (Section III-G, III-K).
  • Chess per-participant difficulty quartiles = relative quartiles 0-3 within each participant's encountered ratings
    Chess workload labels are defined relative to the puzzles each participant actually faced, not on an absolute scale; this is a data-dependent labeling scheme (Section III-G).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Two frontal electrodes (AF7, AF8) carry sufficient information to distinguish the cognitive states studied.
    The entire analysis uses only the averaged frontal probes; the authors acknowledge posterior regions may be needed for mental rotation and some Stroop effects (Section V-E).
  • domain assumption An ASR artifact model trained on each participant's resting data transfers to task data.
    Section III-F trains ASR on cleaned resting-state epochs and applies it to task epochs; if the calibration does not generalize, artifact handling differs across conditions.
  • domain assumption Lichess Glicko2 puzzle ratings provide a valid ordinal workload scale for the chess task.
    Chess difficulty labels are derived entirely from Glicko2 bin ratings (Section III-C, III-D.1), and workload is then defined as per-participant quartiles of encountered ratings.
  • domain assumption One-second epochs are sufficient for reliable spectral estimates down to 4 Hz.
    The authors choose 1-second epochs to maximize samples for real-time use while estimating bands starting at 4 Hz; this is a stated trade-off (Section III-F.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neural Signatures Within and Between Chess Puzzle Solving and Standard Cognitive Tasks for Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Low-Cost Electroencephalography Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6EH3MVOY

@misc{pith2026250507592,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neural Signatures Within and Between Chess Puzzle Solving and Standard Cognitive Tasks for Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Low-Cost Electroencephalography Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6EH3MVOY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07592}
}
read the original abstract

Consumer-grade electroencephalography (EEG) devices show promise for Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) applications, but their efficacy in detecting subtle cognitive states remains understudied. We developed a comprehensive study paradigm which incorporates a combination of established cognitive tasks (N-Back, Stroop, and Mental Rotation) and adds a novel ecological Chess puzzles task. We tested our paradigm with the MUSE 2, a low-cost consumer-grade EEG device. Using linear mixed-effects modeling we demonstrate successful distinctions of within-task workload levels and cross-task cognitive states based on the spectral power data derived from the MUSE 2 device. With machine learning we further show reliable predictive power to differentiate between workload levels in the N-Back task, and also achieve effective cross-task classification. These findings demonstrate that consumer-grade EEG devices like the MUSE 2 can be used to effectively differentiate between various levels of cognitive workload as well as among more nuanced task-based cognitive states, and that these tools can be leveraged for real-time adaptive BCI applications in practical settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07592 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of an incongruent Stroop stimulus; the word [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Example of a trial used for the Mental Rotation task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Experimental procedure per task. In the N-Back task, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: That is, any given block of trials taken together will [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: EEG spectral power compared across tasks, irrespective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Frequency of Chess play across all Chess participants (N=17). M [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of maximum Chess puzzle difficulty level achi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Visualization of one iteration of the data splitting steps for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of one iteration of the data splitting steps for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance and reaction time as a function of workload level for eac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: EEG power band data as compared across levels of workload within eac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Neurophysiological measures of cognitive workload during human-computer interaction,

    A. Gevins and M. E. Smith, “Neurophysiological measures of cognitive workload during human-computer interaction,” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science , vol. 4, no. 1-2, pp. 113–131, 2003. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220210159717

    doi:10.1080/14639220210159717 2003

  2. [2]

    Beyond subjective self-rating: Eeg signal classification of cognitive workload,

    P . Zarjam, J. Epps, and N. H. Lovell, “Beyond subjective self-rating: Eeg signal classification of cognitive workload,” IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 301–310, 2015

    2015

  3. [3]

    A scoping review on the use of consumer-grade eeg devices for research,

    J. Sabio, N. S. Williams, G. M. McArthur, and N. A. Badcock, “A scoping review on the use of consumer-grade eeg devices for research,” PLOS ONE , vol. 19, no. 3, p. e0291186–e0291186, Mar 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10917334/

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Past, present, and future of eeg-based bci applications,

    K. V ¨arbu, N. Muhammad, and Y . Muhammad, “Past, present, and future of eeg-based bci applications,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 9, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/22/9/3331

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Eeg-based brain–computer interfaces,

    D. J. McFarland and J. R. Wolpaw, “Eeg-based brain–computer interfaces,” Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering , vol. 4, pp. 194–200, 2017, synthetic Biology and Biomedical Engineering / Neural Engineering. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S246845111730082X

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Evaluation of consumer-grade eeg headsets for bci drone control,

    P . Peining, G. Tan, and A. P . Wai, “Evaluation of consumer-grade eeg headsets for bci drone control,” in Proceedings of the IRC Conference on Science, Engineering, and Technology , 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    A study on mental state classification using eeg-based brain-machine interface,

    J. J. Bird, L. J. Manso, E. P . Ribeiro, A. Ek ´art, and D. R. Faria, “A study on mental state classification using eeg-based brain-machine interface,” in 2018 International Conference on Intelligent Systems (IS) , 2018, pp. 795–800

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Stress Monitoring Using Low-Cost Electroencephalogram Devices: A Systematic Literature Review

    G. V os, M. Ebrahimpour, L. van Eijk, Z. Sarnyai, and M. Rahimi Azghadi, “Stress monitoring using low-cost electroencephalogram devices: A systematic literature review,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05577 , 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Measuring cognitive workload with low-cost electroencephalograph,

    A. Knoll, Y . Wang, F. Chen, J. Xu, N. Ruiz et al. , “Measuring cognitive workload with low-cost electroencephalograph,” in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT), 2011, pp. 568–571. [Online]. Available: https://hal. archives-...

    2011

  2. [10]

    Mental state recognition via wearable eeg,

    P . Bashivan, I. Rish, S. Heisig, and R. Jean-Baptiste, “Mental state recognition via wearable eeg,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.00985 , 2016. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.00985 13

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    An evaluation of mental workload with frontal eeg,

    W. K. So, S. W. Wong, J. N. Mak, and R. H. Chan, “An evaluation of mental workload with frontal eeg,” PloS one , vol. 12, no. 4, p. e0174949, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Evaluation of consumer-grade wireless eeg systems for brain-computer interface applications,

    S. Lee, M. Kim, and M. Ahn, “Evaluation of consumer-grade wireless eeg systems for brain-computer interface applications,” Biomedical Engineering Letters , vol. 14, pp. 1433–1443, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13534-024-00416-w

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Eeg workload estimation and classification: a systematic review,

    J. Hassan, M. S. Reza, S. U. Ahmed, N. H. Anik, and M. O. Khan, “Eeg workload estimation and classification: a systematic review,” Journal of Neural Engineering , 2024. [Online]. Available: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-2552/ad705e

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    A systemic review of available low-cost eeg headsets used for drowsiness detection,

    J. LaRocco, M. D. Le, and D.-G. Paeng, “A systemic review of available low-cost eeg headsets used for drowsiness detection,” Frontiers in Neuroinformatics , vol. 14, p. 553352, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fninf.2020.553352/full

    2020

  7. [15]

    Mental workload assessment using low-channel prefrontal eeg signals,

    M. Beiramvand, T. Lipping, N. Karttunen, and R. Koivula, “Mental workload assessment using low-channel prefrontal eeg signals,” in 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA) , 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  8. [16]

    Choosing muse: V alidation of a low-cost, portable eeg system for erp research,

    O. E. Krigolson, C. C. Williams, A. Norton, C. D. Hassall, and F. L. Colino, “Choosing muse: V alidation of a low-cost, portable eeg system for erp research,” Frontiers in Neuroscience , vol. 11, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5344886/p...

    2017

  9. [17]

    Technology supported mindfulness for obsessive compulsive disorder: Self-reported mindfulness and eeg correlates of mind wandering,

    L. L. Hawley, N. A. Rector, A. DaSilva, J. M. Laposa, and M. A. Richter, “Technology supported mindfulness for obsessive compulsive disorder: Self-reported mindfulness and eeg correlates of mind wandering,” Behaviour Research and Therapy , vol. 136, p. 103757, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Reliability of muse 2 and tobii pro nano at capturing mobile application users’ real-time cognitive workload changes,

    L. Zhang and H. Cui, “Reliability of muse 2 and tobii pro nano at capturing mobile application users’ real-time cognitive workload changes,” Frontiers in Neuroscience , vol. 16, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10. 3389/fnin...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information,

    W. K. Kirchner, “Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information,” Journal of Experimental Psychology , vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 352–358, 1958

    1958

  12. [20]

    The concurrent validity of the n-back task as a working memory measure,

    S. M. Jaeggi, M. Buschkuehl, W. J. Perrig, and B. Meier, “The concurrent validity of the n-back task as a working memory measure,” Memory, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 394–412, 2010

    2010

  13. [21]

    Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide,

    A. R. A. Conway, M. J. Kane, M. F. Bunting, D. Z. Hambrick, O. Wilhelm, and R. W. Engle, “Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 769–786, 2005

    2005

  14. [22]

    The role of prefrontal cortex in working- memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective,

    M. J. Kane and R. W. Engle, “The role of prefrontal cortex in working- memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 637–671, 2002

    2002

  15. [23]

    Using stroop task to assess cognitive load,

    J. Gwizdka, “Using stroop task to assess cognitive load,” in Proceedings of the 28th Annual European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics , 2010, pp. 219–222

    2010

  16. [24]

    John ridley stroop: Creator of a landmark cognitive task

    C. M. MacLeod, “John ridley stroop: Creator of a landmark cognitive task.” Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne , vol. 32, no. 3, p. 521, 1991

    1991

  17. [25]

    The stroop effect,

    ——, “The stroop effect,” Encyclopedia of color science and technology , pp. 1–6, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects,

    R. N. Shepard and J. Metzler, “Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects,” Science, vol. 171, no. 3972, pp. 701–703, 1971

    1971

  19. [27]

    Similarities between explicit and implicit motor imagery in mental rotation of hands: An eeg study,

    B. A. Osuagwu and A. Vuckovic, “Similarities between explicit and implicit motor imagery in mental rotation of hands: An eeg study,” Neuropsychologia, vol. 65, pp. 197–210, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    Electroencephalographic response of chess players in decision- making processes under time pressure,

    S. Villafaina, D. Collado-Mateo, R. Cano-Plasencia, N. Gusi, and J. P . Fuentes, “Electroencephalographic response of chess players in decision- making processes under time pressure,” Physiology & Behavior , vol. 198, pp. 140–143, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Neurophysiological and autonomic responses of high and low level chess players during difficult and easy chess endgames – a quantitative eeg and hrv study,

    S. Villafaina, M. A. Castro, T. Pereira, A. C. Santos, and J. P . Fuentes-Garc´ıa, “Neurophysiological and autonomic responses of high and low level chess players during difficult and easy chess endgames – a quantitative eeg and hrv study,” Physiology & Behavior , 2021. [Online...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Chess players increase the theta power spectrum when the difficulty of the opponent increases: An eeg study,

    J. P . Fuentes-Garc´ıa, S. Villafaina, D. Collado-Mateo, R. Cano-Plasencia, and N. Gusi, “Chess players increase the theta power spectrum when the difficulty of the opponent increases: An eeg study,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , vol. 17, n...

    2019

  23. [31]

    When the brain goes “aha!

    E. Hageman, “When the brain goes “aha!”: a study on event-related potentials during the moment of insight,” 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    jspsych: Enabling an open-source collaborative ecosystem of behavioral experiments,

    J. R. de Leeuw, R. A. Gilbert, and B. Luchterhandt, “jspsych: Enabling an open-source collaborative ecosystem of behavioral experiments,” Journal of Open Source Software , vol. 8, no. 85, p. 5351, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05351

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    chess.js: A javascript chess library,

    J. Schmich, “chess.js: A javascript chess library,” https://www.npmjs. com/package/chess.js, 2023, version 1.0.0

    2023

  26. [34]

    chessboard.js: A javascript chessboard,

    C. Oakman, “chessboard.js: A javascript chessboard,” https://www.npmjs. com/package/chessboardjs, 2023, version 1.0.0

    2023

  27. [35]

    muse-js: Javascript sdk for the muse eeg headset,

    U. S. Urish, “muse-js: Javascript sdk for the muse eeg headset,” https: //github.com/urish/muse-js, 2023, gitHub repository

    2023

  28. [36]

    Lichess database,

    Lichess Team, “Lichess database,” https://database.lichess.org/, 2024, accessed: January 2023

    2024

  29. [37]

    Example of the glicko-2 system,

    M. E. Glickman, “Example of the glicko-2 system,” Boston University , vol. 28, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Weekly classical rating distribution,

    Lichess Team, “Weekly classical rating distribution,” https://lichess.org/ stat/rating/distribution/classical, 2024, [Accessed 21-10-2024]

    2024

  31. [39]

    A new set of three-dimensional shapes for investigating mental rotation processes: validation data and stimulus set,

    G. Ganis and R. Kievit, “A new set of three-dimensional shapes for investigating mental rotation processes: validation data and stimulus set,” Journal of Open Psychology Data Files in this Item Files Size F ormat View 13-116-2-PB. pdf 567.5 Kb PDF View/Open , 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Lichess puzzles distribution by rating,

    Lichess.org, “Lichess puzzles distribution by rating,” 2022, online forum post accessed January 2025. [Online]. Available: https://lichess.org/ forum/lichess-feedback/lichess-puzzles-distribution-by-rating

    2022

  33. [41]

    MEG and EEG data analysis with MNE-Python,

    A. Gramfort, M. Luessi, E. Larson, D. A. Engemann, D. Strohmeier, C. Brodbeck, R. Goj, M. Jas, T. Brooks, L. Parkkonen, and M. S. H¨am¨al¨ainen, “MEG and EEG data analysis with MNE-Python,” Frontiers in Neuroscience , vol. 7, no. 267, pp. 1–13, 2013

    2013

  34. [42]

    How inappropriate high-pass filters can produce artifactual effects and incorrect conclusions in erp studies of language and cognition,

    D. Tanner, K. Morgan-Short, and S. J. Luck, “How inappropriate high-pass filters can produce artifactual effects and incorrect conclusions in erp studies of language and cognition,” Psychophysiology, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 997–1009, 2015. [Online]. Available: https: //onlinelibrar...

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    Autoreject: Automated artifact rejection for meg and eeg data,

    M. Jas, D. A. Engemann, Y . Bekhti, F. Raimondo, and A. Gramfort, “Autoreject: Automated artifact rejection for meg and eeg data,” NeuroImage, vol. 159, pp. 417–429, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811917305013

    2017

  36. [44]

    Meg and eeg data analysis with mne-python,

    A. Gramfort, M. Luessi, E. Larson, D. A. Engemann, D. Strohmeier, C. Brodbeck, R. Goj, M. Jas, T. Brooks, L. Parkkonen, and M. H ¨am¨al¨ainen, “Meg and eeg data analysis with mne-python,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 7, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www. frontiersin.or...

    2013

  37. [45]

    A multi-subject, multi-modal human neuroimaging dataset,

    D. G. Wakeman and R. N. Henson, “A multi-subject, multi-modal human neuroimaging dataset,” Scientific Data , vol. 2, no. 1, p. 150001,

  38. [46]

    Physiobank, physiotoolkit, and physionet: components of a new research resource for complex physiologic signals,

    A. Goldberger, L. Amaral, L. Glass, J. Hausdorff, P . Ivanov, R. Mark, J. Mietus, G. Moody, C. Peng, and H. Stanley, “Physiobank, physiotoolkit, and physionet: components of a new research resource for complex physiologic signals,” Circulation, vol. 101, no. 23, pp. E215–E220, 2000

    2000

  39. [47]

    Bci2000: a general-purpose brain-computer interface (bci) system,

    G. Schalk, D. McFarland, T. Hinterberger, N. Birbaumer, and J. Wolpaw, “Bci2000: a general-purpose brain-computer interface (bci) system,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1034–1043, 2004

    2004

  40. [48]

    Evaluation of artifact subspace reconstruction for automatic eeg artifact removal,

    C.-Y . Chang, S.-H. Hsu, L. Pion-Tonachini, and T.-P . Jung, “Evaluation of artifact subspace reconstruction for automatic eeg artifact removal,” in Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) , Jul. 2018, pp. 1242–1245

    2018

  41. [49]

    Real-time neuroimaging and cognitive monitoring using wearable dry EEG,

    T. R. Mullen, C. A. E. Kothe, Y . M. Chi, A. Ojeda, T. Kerth, S. Makeig, T.-P . Jung, and G. Cauwenberghs, “Real-time neuroimaging and cognitive monitoring using wearable dry EEG,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 62, no. 11, pp. 2553–2567, 2015

    2015

  42. [50]

    The harvard automated processing pipeline for electroencephalography (happe): Standardized processing software for developmental and high-artifact data,

    L. J. Gabard-Durnam, A. S. Mendez Leal, C. L. Wilkinson, and A. R. Levin, “The harvard automated processing pipeline for electroencephalography (happe): Standardized processing software for developmental and high-artifact data,” Frontiers in Neuroscience , vol. 12, 2018. [Onli...

    2018

  43. [51]

    D. B. Percival and A. T. Walden, Spectral Analysis for Physical Applica- tions: Multitaper and Conventional Univariate Techniques . Cambridge; New Y ork: Cambridge University Press, 1993

    1993

  44. [52]

    Multitaper spectral estimation: An alternative to the welch periodogram approach,

    J. Candy, “Multitaper spectral estimation: An alternative to the welch periodogram approach,” Lawrence Livermore National Lab.(LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States), Tech. Rep., 2019

    2019

  45. [53]

    Cross- subject eeg-based emotion recognition through neural networks with stratified normalization,

    J. Fern ´andez, N. Guttenberg, O. Witkowski, and A. Pasquali, “Cross- subject eeg-based emotion recognition through neural networks with stratified normalization,” Frontiers in neuroscience , vol. 15, p. 626277, 2021. 14

    2021

  46. [54]

    lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models,

    A. Kuznetsova, P . B. Brockhoff, and R. H. B. Christensen, “lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models,” Journal of Statistical Software, vol. 82, no. 13, pp. 1–26, 2017

    2017

  47. [55]

    performance: An R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models,

    D. L ¨udecke, M. S. Ben-Shachar, I. Patil, P . Waggoner, and D. Makowski, “performance: An R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models,” Journal of Open Source Software , vol. 6, no. 60, p. 3139, 2021

    2021

  48. [56]

    effectsize: Estimation of effect size indices and standardized parameters,

    M. S. Ben-Shachar, D. L ¨udecke, and D. Makowski, “effectsize: Estimation of effect size indices and standardized parameters,” Journal of Open Source Software , vol. 5, no. 56, p. 2815, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02815

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    R. V . Lenth, emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least- Squares Means , 2024, r package version 1.10.1. [Online]. Available: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans

    2024

  50. [58]

    To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data,

    S. Lo and S. Andrews, “To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data,” Frontiers in psychology , vol. 6, p. 1171, 2015

    2015

  51. [59]

    seaborn: statistical data visualization,

    M. L. Waskom, “seaborn: statistical data visualization,” Journal of Open Source Software , vol. 6, no. 60, p. 3021, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03021

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,

    F. Pedregosa, G. V aroquaux, A. Gramfort, V . Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P . Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V . Dubourg, J. V anderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay, “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,” Journal of Machine L...

    2011

  53. [61]

    Imbalanced-learn: A python toolbox to tackle the curse of imbalanced datasets in machine learning,

    G. Lema ˆıtre, F. Nogueira, and C. K. Aridas, “Imbalanced-learn: A python toolbox to tackle the curse of imbalanced datasets in machine learning,” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 18, no. 17, pp. 1–5, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://jmlr.org/papers/v18/16-365.html

    2017

  54. [62]

    Gamma rhythms in the brain,

    X. Jia and A. Kohn, “Gamma rhythms in the brain,” PLoS Biology , vol. 9, no. 4, p. e1001045, 2011

    2011

  55. [63]

    Chapter 2.3 - beta and gamma rhythms,

    J. D. Kropotov, “Chapter 2.3 - beta and gamma rhythms,” in Functional Neuromarkers for Psychiatry , J. D. Kropotov, Ed. San Diego: Academic Press, 2016, pp. 107–119. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124105133000097

    2016

  56. [64]

    Estimating workload using eeg spectral power and erps in the n-back task,

    A.-M. Brouwer, M. A. Hogervorst, J. B. F. van Erp, T. Heffelaar, P . H. Zimmerman, and R. Oostenveld, “Estimating workload using eeg spectral power and erps in the n-back task,” Journal of Neural Engineering , vol. 9, no. 4, p. 045008, 07 2012

    2012

  57. [65]

    Chapter 4 - frontal midline theta rhythm,

    J. D. Kropotov, “Chapter 4 - frontal midline theta rhythm,” in Quantitative EEG, Event-Related Potentials and Neurotherapy , J. D. Kropotov, Ed. San Diego: Academic Press, 2009, pp. 77–95. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123745125000049

    2009

  58. [66]

    α -band oscillations, attention, and controlled access to stored information,

    W. Klimesch, “ α -band oscillations, attention, and controlled access to stored information,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences , vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 606–617, 2012

    2012

  59. [67]

    Dissociated stimulus and response conflict effect in the stroop task: Evidence from evoked brain potentials and brain oscillations,

    J. Zhao, W.-K. Liang, C.-H. Juan, L. Wang, S. Wang, and Z. Zhu, “Dissociated stimulus and response conflict effect in the stroop task: Evidence from evoked brain potentials and brain oscillations,” Biological Psychology , vol. 104, pp. 130–138, 2015. [Online]. Available: https:...

    2015

  60. [68]

    Brain oscillations in cognitive control: A cross-sectional study with a spatial stroop task,

    A. Tafuro, E. Ambrosini, O. Puccioni, and A. V allesi, “Brain oscillations in cognitive control: A cross-sectional study with a spatial stroop task,” Neuropsychologia, vol. 133, p. 107190, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393219302337

    2019

  61. [69]

    Eeg alpha oscillations: The inhibition–timing hypothesis,

    W. Klimesch, P . Sauseng, and S. Hanslmayr, “Eeg alpha oscillations: The inhibition–timing hypothesis,” Brain Research Reviews , vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 63–88, Jan. 2007

    2007

  62. [70]

    Eeg alpha synchronization and functional coupling during top-down processing in a working memory task,

    P . Sauseng, W. Klimesch, M. Doppelmayr, T. Pecherstorfer, R. Freun- berger, and S. Hanslmayr, “Eeg alpha synchronization and functional coupling during top-down processing in a working memory task,” Human Brain Mapping , vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 148–155, 05 2005

    2005

  63. [71]

    Eeg alpha power and creative ideation,

    A. Fink and M. Benedek, “Eeg alpha power and creative ideation,” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews , vol. 44, pp. 111–123, Jul. 2014

    2014

  64. [72]

    Mental and physical effort affect vigilance differently,

    A. S. Smit, P . A. Eling, M. T. Hopman, and A. M. Coenen, “Mental and physical effort affect vigilance differently,” International Journal of Psychophysiology, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 211–217, Sep. 2005

    2005

  65. [73]

    Frontal theta as a mechanism for cognitive control,

    J. F. Cavanagh and M. J. Frank, “Frontal theta as a mechanism for cognitive control,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences , vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 414–421, Aug. 2014

    2014

  66. [74]

    Control mechanisms in working memory: A possible function of eeg theta oscillations,

    P . Sauseng, B. Griesmayr, R. Freunberger, and W. Klimesch, “Control mechanisms in working memory: A possible function of eeg theta oscillations,” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews , vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1015–1022, Jun. 2010

    2010

  67. [75]

    The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory?

    A. Baddeley, “The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences , vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 417–423, Nov. 2000

    2000

  68. [76]

    Gamma and beta bursts during working memory readout suggest roles in its volitional control,

    M. Lundqvist, P . Herman, M. R. Warden, S. L. Brincat, and E. K. Miller, “Gamma and beta bursts during working memory readout suggest roles in its volitional control,” Nature Communications , vol. 9, no. 1, Jan. 2018

    2018

  69. [77]

    A functional mri study of high-level cognition. i. the game of chess,

    M. Atherton, J. Zhuang, W. M. Bart, X. Hu, and S. He, “A functional mri study of high-level cognition. i. the game of chess,” Cognitive Brain Research, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 26–31, Mar. 2003

    2003

  70. [78]

    Deep learning for electroen- cephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,

    A. Craik, Y . He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroen- cephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” Journal of Neural Engineering, vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019

    2019

  71. [79]

    Status of deep learning for EEG-based brain–computer interface applications,

    K. M. Hossain, M. A. Islam, S. Hossain, A. Nijholt, and M. A. R. Ahad, “Status of deep learning for EEG-based brain–computer interface applications,” Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience , vol. 16, p. 1006763, 2023

    2023

  72. [80]

    Empowering computer science students in electroencephalography (EEG) analysis: A review of machine learning algorithms for EEG datasets,

    N. K. Murungi, M. V . Pham, X. C. Dai, and X. Qu, “Empowering computer science students in electroencephalography (EEG) analysis: A review of machine learning algorithms for EEG datasets,” 2023. Supplementary Material 1 Figure 1: Frequency of Chess play across all Chess partic...

    2023

  73. [2015]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2015.1

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2015.1

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.