Muse Headband: Measuring Tool or a Collaborative Gadget?

Part of the Studies on Entrepreneurship, Structural Change and Industrial Dynamics book series (ESID)


We have conducted an observational study on persons participating passively in public lectures. During a lecture we were measuring the level of focus of listeners using the Muse EEG-headband as well as conducting an observational study of the usage of the device by experiment participants. The purpose was twofold: to understand to what extent commercially available portable EEG-devices can record synchronicity of experience among the audience and to check what kind of usage participants make of this multi-purpose device. While we got some preliminary insights, we found that the usefulness in measuring EEG signal of consumer-grade devices such as Muse is extremely limited in non-laboratory conditions.


  1. Abujelala, M., Abellanoza, C., Sharma, A., & Makedon, F. (2016). Brain-EE: Brain enjoyment evaluation using commercial EEG headband. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (pp. 33:1–33:5). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  2. Alrige, M., & Chatterjee, S. (2015). Toward a taxonomy of wearable technologies in healthcare. In New horizons in design science: Broadening the research agenda (pp. 496–504). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Calvo, R. A., & Peters, D. (2014). Positive computing: Technology for wellbeing and human potential. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chiesa, A., & Serretti, A. (2009). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for stress management in healthy people: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 15, 593–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gulati, R. (2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 775–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kasperiuniene, J., Jariwala, M., Vaskevicius, E., & Satkauskas, S. (2016). Affective engagement to virtual and live lectures. In G. Dregvaite & R. Damasevicius (Eds.), Information and software technologies (pp. 499–508). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kopeć, J., Pacewicz, K., Przegalińska, A., et al. (2015). Gamification. Critical Approaches. Warsaw: University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
  8. Lupton, D. (2016). The quantified self. Cambridge: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Lutz, A., Slagter, H. A., Dunne, J. D., & Davidson, R. J. (2008). Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mazurek, G., & Tkaczyk, J. (2016). The impact of the digital world on management and marketing. Warsaw: Poltext.Google Scholar
  11. Nafus, D., & Sherman, J. (2014). Big data, big questions| This one does not go up to 11: The quantified self movement as an alternative big data practice. International Journal of Communication Systems, 8, 11.Google Scholar
  12. Nafus, D., & Tracey, K. (2002). Mobile phone consumption and concepts of personhood. In J. E. Katz & M. A. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact (pp. 206–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rettner, R. (2016). Wearable devices move toward disease treatment. Retrieved January 24, 2018, from
  14. Weller, J. (2012). Shedding new light on tribalism in health care. Medical Education, 46, 134–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wiechert, G., Triff, M., Liu, Z., et al. (2016). Identifying users and activities with cognitive signal processing from a wearable headband. In 2016 I.E. 15th International Conference on Cognitive Informatics Cognitive Computing (ICCI*CC) (pp. 129–136).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kozminski UniversityWarsawPoland
  2. 2.University of Social Sciences and HumanitiesWarsawPoland
  3. 3.MIT Center for Collective IntelligenceCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations