Cargando…
Evaluation of Different EEG Acquisition Systems Concerning Their Suitability for Building a Brain–Computer Interface: Case Studies
One important aspect in non-invasive brain–computer interface (BCI) research is to acquire the electroencephalogram (EEG) in a proper way. From an end-user perspective, it means with maximum comfort and without any extra inconveniences (e.g., washing the hair), whereas from a technical perspective,...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5043223/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27746714 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00441 |
_version_ | 1782456712021671936 |
---|---|
author | Pinegger, Andreas Wriessnegger, Selina C. Faller, Josef Müller-Putz, Gernot R. |
author_facet | Pinegger, Andreas Wriessnegger, Selina C. Faller, Josef Müller-Putz, Gernot R. |
author_sort | Pinegger, Andreas |
collection | PubMed |
description | One important aspect in non-invasive brain–computer interface (BCI) research is to acquire the electroencephalogram (EEG) in a proper way. From an end-user perspective, it means with maximum comfort and without any extra inconveniences (e.g., washing the hair), whereas from a technical perspective, the signal quality has to be optimal to make the BCI work effectively and efficiently. In this work, we evaluated three different commercially available EEG acquisition systems that differ in the type of electrodes (gel-, water-, and dry-based), the amplifier technique, and the data transmission method. Every system was tested regarding three different aspects, namely, technical, BCI effectiveness and efficiency (P300 communication and control), and user satisfaction (comfort). We found that water-based system had the lowest short circuit noise level, the hydrogel-based system had the highest P300 spelling accuracies, and the dry electrode-based system caused the least inconveniences. Therefore, building a reliable BCI is possible with all the evaluated systems, and it is on the user to decide which system meets the given requirements best. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5043223 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50432232016-10-14 Evaluation of Different EEG Acquisition Systems Concerning Their Suitability for Building a Brain–Computer Interface: Case Studies Pinegger, Andreas Wriessnegger, Selina C. Faller, Josef Müller-Putz, Gernot R. Front Neurosci Neuroscience One important aspect in non-invasive brain–computer interface (BCI) research is to acquire the electroencephalogram (EEG) in a proper way. From an end-user perspective, it means with maximum comfort and without any extra inconveniences (e.g., washing the hair), whereas from a technical perspective, the signal quality has to be optimal to make the BCI work effectively and efficiently. In this work, we evaluated three different commercially available EEG acquisition systems that differ in the type of electrodes (gel-, water-, and dry-based), the amplifier technique, and the data transmission method. Every system was tested regarding three different aspects, namely, technical, BCI effectiveness and efficiency (P300 communication and control), and user satisfaction (comfort). We found that water-based system had the lowest short circuit noise level, the hydrogel-based system had the highest P300 spelling accuracies, and the dry electrode-based system caused the least inconveniences. Therefore, building a reliable BCI is possible with all the evaluated systems, and it is on the user to decide which system meets the given requirements best. Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5043223/ /pubmed/27746714 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00441 Text en Copyright © 2016 Pinegger, Wriessnegger, Faller and Müller-Putz. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Neuroscience Pinegger, Andreas Wriessnegger, Selina C. Faller, Josef Müller-Putz, Gernot R. Evaluation of Different EEG Acquisition Systems Concerning Their Suitability for Building a Brain–Computer Interface: Case Studies |
title | Evaluation of Different EEG Acquisition Systems Concerning Their Suitability for Building a Brain–Computer Interface: Case Studies |
title_full | Evaluation of Different EEG Acquisition Systems Concerning Their Suitability for Building a Brain–Computer Interface: Case Studies |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of Different EEG Acquisition Systems Concerning Their Suitability for Building a Brain–Computer Interface: Case Studies |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of Different EEG Acquisition Systems Concerning Their Suitability for Building a Brain–Computer Interface: Case Studies |
title_short | Evaluation of Different EEG Acquisition Systems Concerning Their Suitability for Building a Brain–Computer Interface: Case Studies |
title_sort | evaluation of different eeg acquisition systems concerning their suitability for building a brain–computer interface: case studies |
topic | Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5043223/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27746714 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00441 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pineggerandreas evaluationofdifferenteegacquisitionsystemsconcerningtheirsuitabilityforbuildingabraincomputerinterfacecasestudies AT wriessneggerselinac evaluationofdifferenteegacquisitionsystemsconcerningtheirsuitabilityforbuildingabraincomputerinterfacecasestudies AT fallerjosef evaluationofdifferenteegacquisitionsystemsconcerningtheirsuitabilityforbuildingabraincomputerinterfacecasestudies AT mullerputzgernotr evaluationofdifferenteegacquisitionsystemsconcerningtheirsuitabilityforbuildingabraincomputerinterfacecasestudies |