EEG-Based Neurofeedback in Athletes and Non-Athletes: A Scoping Review of Outcomes and Methodologies

TL;DR

This review examines EEG-based neurofeedback studies in athletes and non-athletes, highlighting methodological issues that limit reproducibility and suggest improvements for future research.

Contribution

The paper provides a comprehensive scoping review of EEG-based neurofeedback methodologies and outcomes, identifying reproducibility gaps and suggesting modern approaches for future studies.

Findings

Most studies lacked modern spectral analysis methods like FOOOF.

Only a minority used active or inert sham protocols for blinding.

Reporting standards and follow-up assessments were generally poor.

Abstract

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 However, methodological inconsistencies—such as limited blinding, poor sham control, and outdated approaches to EEG spectral analysis—restrict reproducibility and hinder cumulative progress in the field.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.

Figures