EEG-based neurofeedback in athletes and non-athletes: a scoping review of outcomes and methodologies

Guerreiro Zacarias, Rui Manuel; Bulathwatta, Darshika Thejani; Bidzan-Bluma, Ilona; Neves de Jesus, Saúl; Correia, Joao

http://hdl.handle.net/10400.1/28010

Use this identifier to reference this record.

Name:	Description:	Size:	Format:
bioengineering-12-01202.pdf		2.34 MB	Adobe PDF	Download

Send Feedback

Authors

Guerreiro Zacarias, Rui Manuel

Bulathwatta, Darshika Thejani

Bidzan-Bluma, Ilona

Neves de Jesus, Saúl

Correia, Joao

Abstract(s)

Background: Electroencephalography (EEG) is a non-invasive technique that records millisecond-scale cortical electrical activity using scalp electrodes. In EEG-based neurofeedback (NFB), these signals are processed to provide real-time feedback that supports self-regulation of targeted brain rhythms; evidence suggests improvements in cognitive and neurophysiological performance in athletes and non-athletes. However, methodological inconsistencies—such as limited blinding, poor sham control, and outdated approaches to EEG spectral analysis—restrict reproducibility and hinder cumulative progress in the field. Methods: This scoping review aimed to identify and analyze the methodological characteristics, outcome measures, and reproducibility gaps in EEG-based NFB studies involving athletes and non-athletes. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we systematically searched academic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library), as well as gray literature sources (ProQuest Dissertations, LILACS, Tripdatabase, and Google Scholar). Of 48 included studies, 44 were published in international peer-reviewed journals and 4 in regional journals. Data were extracted on study design, participant population, NFB protocols, targeted EEG rhythms, cognitive and neurophysiological outcomes, and methodological rigor. Results: The review revealed substantial heterogeneity in targeted rhythms, protocols, and reporting standards. None of the studies employed modern spectral parameterization methods (e.g., FOOOF), while only 29% used active sham protocols and 6% employed inert sham conditions. Reporting blinding procedures and follow-up assessments was limited or absent in most studies. Discussion: This review highlights critical methodological shortcomings that may bias interpretations of NFB effects in sport and cognitive domains. To strengthen future research, studies should rigorously implement sham and blinding procedures, ensure transparent reporting of EEG metrics, and adopt open-science practices, including modern approaches to spectral parameterization.