Cargando…

Multi-Center Evaluation of Gel-Based and Dry Multipin EEG Caps

Dry electrodes for electroencephalography (EEG) allow new fields of application, including telemedicine, mobile EEG, emergency EEG, and long-term repetitive measurements for research, neurofeedback, or brain–computer interfaces. Different dry electrode technologies have been proposed and validated i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ng, Chuen Rue, Fiedler, Patrique, Kuhlmann, Levin, Liley, David, Vasconcelos, Beatriz, Fonseca, Carlos, Tamburro, Gabriella, Comani, Silvia, Lui, Troby Ka-Yan, Tse, Chun-Yu, Warsito, Indhika Fauzhan, Supriyanto, Eko, Haueisen, Jens
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9612204/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36298430
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22208079
_version_ 1784819716298113024
author Ng, Chuen Rue
Fiedler, Patrique
Kuhlmann, Levin
Liley, David
Vasconcelos, Beatriz
Fonseca, Carlos
Tamburro, Gabriella
Comani, Silvia
Lui, Troby Ka-Yan
Tse, Chun-Yu
Warsito, Indhika Fauzhan
Supriyanto, Eko
Haueisen, Jens
author_facet Ng, Chuen Rue
Fiedler, Patrique
Kuhlmann, Levin
Liley, David
Vasconcelos, Beatriz
Fonseca, Carlos
Tamburro, Gabriella
Comani, Silvia
Lui, Troby Ka-Yan
Tse, Chun-Yu
Warsito, Indhika Fauzhan
Supriyanto, Eko
Haueisen, Jens
author_sort Ng, Chuen Rue
collection PubMed
description Dry electrodes for electroencephalography (EEG) allow new fields of application, including telemedicine, mobile EEG, emergency EEG, and long-term repetitive measurements for research, neurofeedback, or brain–computer interfaces. Different dry electrode technologies have been proposed and validated in comparison to conventional gel-based electrodes. Most previous studies have been performed at a single center and by single operators. We conducted a multi-center and multi-operator study validating multipin dry electrodes to study the reproducibility and generalizability of their performance in different environments and for different operators. Moreover, we aimed to study the interrelation of operator experience, preparation time, and wearing comfort on the EEG signal quality. EEG acquisitions using dry and gel-based EEG caps were carried out in 6 different countries with 115 volunteers, recording electrode-skin impedances, resting state EEG and evoked activity. The dry cap showed average channel reliability of 81% but higher average impedances than the gel-based cap. However, the dry EEG caps required 62% less preparation time. No statistical differences were observed between the gel-based and dry EEG signal characteristics in all signal metrics. We conclude that the performance of the dry multipin electrodes is highly reproducible, whereas the primary influences on channel reliability and signal quality are operator skill and experience.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9612204
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96122042022-10-28 Multi-Center Evaluation of Gel-Based and Dry Multipin EEG Caps Ng, Chuen Rue Fiedler, Patrique Kuhlmann, Levin Liley, David Vasconcelos, Beatriz Fonseca, Carlos Tamburro, Gabriella Comani, Silvia Lui, Troby Ka-Yan Tse, Chun-Yu Warsito, Indhika Fauzhan Supriyanto, Eko Haueisen, Jens Sensors (Basel) Article Dry electrodes for electroencephalography (EEG) allow new fields of application, including telemedicine, mobile EEG, emergency EEG, and long-term repetitive measurements for research, neurofeedback, or brain–computer interfaces. Different dry electrode technologies have been proposed and validated in comparison to conventional gel-based electrodes. Most previous studies have been performed at a single center and by single operators. We conducted a multi-center and multi-operator study validating multipin dry electrodes to study the reproducibility and generalizability of their performance in different environments and for different operators. Moreover, we aimed to study the interrelation of operator experience, preparation time, and wearing comfort on the EEG signal quality. EEG acquisitions using dry and gel-based EEG caps were carried out in 6 different countries with 115 volunteers, recording electrode-skin impedances, resting state EEG and evoked activity. The dry cap showed average channel reliability of 81% but higher average impedances than the gel-based cap. However, the dry EEG caps required 62% less preparation time. No statistical differences were observed between the gel-based and dry EEG signal characteristics in all signal metrics. We conclude that the performance of the dry multipin electrodes is highly reproducible, whereas the primary influences on channel reliability and signal quality are operator skill and experience. MDPI 2022-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9612204/ /pubmed/36298430 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22208079 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Ng, Chuen Rue
Fiedler, Patrique
Kuhlmann, Levin
Liley, David
Vasconcelos, Beatriz
Fonseca, Carlos
Tamburro, Gabriella
Comani, Silvia
Lui, Troby Ka-Yan
Tse, Chun-Yu
Warsito, Indhika Fauzhan
Supriyanto, Eko
Haueisen, Jens
Multi-Center Evaluation of Gel-Based and Dry Multipin EEG Caps
title Multi-Center Evaluation of Gel-Based and Dry Multipin EEG Caps
title_full Multi-Center Evaluation of Gel-Based and Dry Multipin EEG Caps
title_fullStr Multi-Center Evaluation of Gel-Based and Dry Multipin EEG Caps
title_full_unstemmed Multi-Center Evaluation of Gel-Based and Dry Multipin EEG Caps
title_short Multi-Center Evaluation of Gel-Based and Dry Multipin EEG Caps
title_sort multi-center evaluation of gel-based and dry multipin eeg caps
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9612204/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36298430
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22208079
work_keys_str_mv AT ngchuenrue multicenterevaluationofgelbasedanddrymultipineegcaps
AT fiedlerpatrique multicenterevaluationofgelbasedanddrymultipineegcaps
AT kuhlmannlevin multicenterevaluationofgelbasedanddrymultipineegcaps
AT lileydavid multicenterevaluationofgelbasedanddrymultipineegcaps
AT vasconcelosbeatriz multicenterevaluationofgelbasedanddrymultipineegcaps
AT fonsecacarlos multicenterevaluationofgelbasedanddrymultipineegcaps
AT tamburrogabriella multicenterevaluationofgelbasedanddrymultipineegcaps
AT comanisilvia multicenterevaluationofgelbasedanddrymultipineegcaps
AT luitrobykayan multicenterevaluationofgelbasedanddrymultipineegcaps
AT tsechunyu multicenterevaluationofgelbasedanddrymultipineegcaps
AT warsitoindhikafauzhan multicenterevaluationofgelbasedanddrymultipineegcaps
AT supriyantoeko multicenterevaluationofgelbasedanddrymultipineegcaps
AT haueisenjens multicenterevaluationofgelbasedanddrymultipineegcaps