Cognitive Finance Group · Research Study QU-001
Can EEG-based neurofeedback influence financial decision-making under stress?
QU-001 is a randomized, sham-controlled pilot study investigating whether EEG-based neurofeedback training is associated with changes in decisions following simulated financial losses.
Early-stage research. No QU-001 findings or neurofeedback effectiveness claims have been established.Protocol #10126
Preregistered
Sham-Controlled
Findings Pending
The Research Question
What happens to financial decisions after neurofeedback training?
QU-001 investigates whether participants assigned to active EEG-based neurofeedback differ from those assigned to sham training in their responses to simulated financial stress.
The study examines behavior in a controlled simulation, not real-world investment returns.
What the study asks
Do participants receiving active neurofeedback show different patterns of risk control, rule adherence, consistency, or recovery after simulated losses compared with the sham-control group?
What the study does not assume
The study does not assume that neurofeedback improves financial decisions. It investigates whether measurable differences emerge.
Why a simulation?
Standardized simulated events make it possible to observe decisions under comparable experimental conditions.
Study Overview
The QU-001 pilot study.
The planned research design includes repeated behavioral assessments and EEG measurements, with participants randomly assigned to active or sham training.
The study plans approximately 40 participants and 20 training sessions. These are targets and planned procedures, not completed enrollment.
Review the preregistered design ↗Participant logistics
The study description specifies visits of approximately 60 minutes at Quinnipiac University's School of Business, Room 213, with no participant compensation.
Visit activities may differ depending on whether a session includes training, baseline testing, midpoint assessment, or post-training measurements.
The research team will confirm the exact schedule and time commitment using the approved consent materials.
How the Study Works
A structured research process.
The planned sequence moves from screening and baseline assessments through assigned training, repeated assessments, and analysis.
Screening & Baseline
Confirm eligibility and complete initial assessments.
Random Assignment
Assignment to active or sham-control conditions.
Training
Complete the planned 20-session training schedule.
Assessments
Complete BMS and other scheduled study measurements.
Final Assessment
Complete post-training measurements before analysis.
Participant Experience
What a study visit may involve.
Activities depend on the scheduled visit. Routine training visits and visits involving additional assessments may not have identical procedures or time requirements.
Preparation
EEG equipment and session readiness are checked.
Assigned Training
Participants complete their assigned training condition.
Scheduled Assessments
BMS and EEG assessments occur at designated study timepoints.
Closeout
Equipment is removed and the visit concludes.
Eligibility screening is not enrollment. The research team provides study information and informed consent materials before participation. Participation is voluntary.
Behavioral Market Simulation
Measuring decisions in a simulated market.
The Behavioral Market Simulation (BMS) records participant decisions during programmed market changes, including simulated losses and disruptions.
These measures describe behavior in the simulation, not proven real-world investment skill.
Study-specific scores may use a 0–100 scale. Score scaling does not establish scientific validity.Understanding BMS Scores
What might a behavioral score represent?
The BMS evaluates observable choices in simulated market conditions. The following example is hypothetical and is provided only to explain how a normalized score might work.
Example: Rule Adherence
Imagine a simplified scoring exercise in which a participant is given 10 opportunities to follow a predefined simulated trading rule.
If the participant follows the rule in 8 of those 10 opportunities, a simple percentage calculation would produce a score of 80 out of 100.
Important: This simplified calculation does not represent the verified BMS scoring algorithm, an actual participant score, or an outcome from QU-001.
The study's operational definitions, weighting rules, and interpretation of scores must be established by its documented measurement protocol. A high score is not proof of financial competence.
Research Design
A randomized, sham-controlled research design.
Randomization and a sham-control condition help researchers evaluate whether observed differences may be related to the active training component rather than expectations, repeated testing, or other influences.
Random Assignment
Group allocation uses a chance-based procedure to help reduce systematic differences at baseline.
Comparable Assessments
Scheduled measurements are intended to support comparisons between the study conditions.
Blinded Scoring
Outcome scoring is planned without using knowledge of participants' group assignments.
Randomization, sham control, and blinded scoring can reduce certain biases, but they cannot eliminate every possible confounding influence. Results must be interpreted in light of the study's actual execution.
Measurement and Verification
Software testing and scientific measurement.
Reliable software operation and scientific measurement validity are separate questions. Both require appropriate evidence.
Software Verification
104 automated testsThe earlier platform description reports 104 automated software tests. This count should be reconfirmed against the current software build before publication.
Comparison Instruments
BART and N-backThese instruments appear in the earlier study description. Their intended use should be confirmed against the approved protocol.
Automated tests can help identify software implementation errors. They do not, by themselves, establish that BMS scores measure the psychological or behavioral constructs they are intended to represent.
Technical Terms and Definitions
Understanding the terminology.
The study brings together neuroscience, behavioral finance, and experimental research. Select a term below for a plain-language explanation.
These definitions are educational. The approved research protocol determines which procedures and measurements are actually used in QU-001.
EEG — Electroencephalography
EEG is a noninvasive method of recording electrical activity from the brain using electrodes placed on the scalp.
qEEG — Quantitative EEG
qEEG applies mathematical and statistical analyses to EEG recordings to describe patterns of brain electrical activity.
Study context: The planned study description includes baseline, midpoint, and post-training qEEG assessments.
Neurofeedback
Neurofeedback provides information about brain activity through visual, auditory, or other feedback. It is used to investigate whether participants can learn to change selected patterns of activity.
Whether this changes simulated financial decisions is a research question, not an established result.
Sham Neurofeedback
A comparison condition designed to resemble active neurofeedback without providing the same targeted feedback contingency.
A sham condition helps researchers evaluate alternative explanations for differences between groups. It does not automatically remove all expectation or placebo effects.
Randomization
Assigning participants to study groups using a chance-based process. This helps reduce systematic differences between groups before training begins.
Blinded Outcome Scoring
Evaluating study outcomes without using knowledge of participants' assigned conditions.
This is intended to reduce assessment bias but does not eliminate every possible bias.
BMS — Behavioral Market Simulation
A controlled software environment designed to present simulated market events and record participant decisions.
BMS outcomes describe behavior within the simulation and are not equivalent to verified real-world investing performance.
Behavioral Finance
The study of how psychological, cognitive, and behavioral factors influence financial decisions, including responses to risk, uncertainty, and losses.
Risk Control After Loss
A study-specific behavioral measure examining how a participant changes or manages simulated market exposure after a loss.
Rule Adherence
The extent to which participant decisions follow predefined rules in the simulated market environment.
Consistency Under Disruption
A study-specific measure describing the stability of decisions during programmed market disruptions.
Its precise interpretation depends on the operational definition and scoring method.
Recovery Speed
A measure of how quickly simulated risk behavior returns toward a defined baseline after a simulated loss.
It does not directly measure clinical resilience or psychological recovery.
BART — Balloon Analogue Risk Task
A behavioral research task commonly used to examine risk-taking under uncertainty.
Participants make repeated choices involving potential rewards and the possibility of losing accumulated gains.
Its inclusion in a study does not automatically validate BMS measurements.
N-back Task
A cognitive task used to assess aspects of working memory.
Participants respond based on whether a current stimulus matches one presented a specified number of steps earlier.
Construct Validity
The degree to which evidence supports interpreting a measurement as representing the concept it is intended to measure.
For example, a measure labeled "risk control" requires evidence that its scores meaningfully reflect risk-control behavior.
Software reliability alone does not establish construct validity.
Pilot Study
An early-stage investigation that can help assess feasibility, study procedures, and preliminary patterns before larger studies.
Findings may be limited by sample size, design, and study setting.
IRB — Institutional Review Board
A committee that reviews research involving human participants for ethical considerations and participant protections.
IRB approval does not prove that a research hypothesis is correct or that an intervention is effective.
OSF — Open Science Framework
An online platform used to organize, document, and share research projects.
Preregistration records planned research questions and methods. It is not itself a research finding or peer-reviewed publication.
Research Status and Open Science
Where the research stands.
QU-001 is an early-stage pilot study. Ethics approval has been obtained, the study design is documented, and eligibility screening is available. Findings remain pending.
OSF Preregistration
Planned research questions and methods are documented in the OSF record.
IRB Approval
Quinnipiac University Institutional Review Board, Protocol #10126.
Participant Eligibility
Eligibility screening is available for Quinnipiac University students age 18 and older.
IRB approval reflects ethics review of the research protocol. It does not demonstrate neurofeedback effectiveness, confirm the research hypothesis, or establish BMS scientific validity.
Research Interpretation
What this pilot can—and cannot—establish.
The study examines measurable responses in a simulated environment. Future interpretation will depend on the actual results, sample, and methodological limitations.
Early-stage evidence
A pilot study can inform future research but does not automatically establish a generalizable effect.
Simulated behavior
Decisions made in a controlled simulation may differ from decisions involving real financial consequences.
Measurement validity
Behavioral scores require evidence supporting their interpretation. A numerical score is not sufficient to establish that a construct has been measured accurately.
Future research
Larger samples or additional settings may be considered in the future. These are possibilities, not completed or approved studies.
Get Involved
Interested in QU-001?
Quinnipiac University students age 18 and older can review the eligibility questionnaire. Researchers and potential collaborators can contact the study team.
Participation is voluntary. Screening does not guarantee enrollment.