↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Medical and Consumer Wireless EEG Systems for Use in Clinical Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
133 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
256 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of Medical and Consumer Wireless EEG Systems for Use in Clinical Trials
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00398
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elena Ratti, Shani Waninger, Chris Berka, Giulio Ruffini, Ajay Verma

Abstract

Objectives: To compare quantitative EEG signal and test-retest reliability of medical grade and consumer EEG systems. Methods: Resting state EEG was acquired by two medical grade (B-Alert, Enobio) and two consumer (Muse, Mindwave) EEG systems in five healthy subjects during two study visits. EEG patterns, power spectral densities (PSDs) and test/retest reliability in eyes closed and eyes open conditions were compared across the four systems, focusing on Fp1, the only common electrode. Fp1 PSDs were obtained using Welch's modified periodogram method and averaged for the five subjects for each visit. The test/retest results were calculated as a ratio of Visit 1/Visit 2 Fp1 channel PSD at each 1 s epoch. Results: B-Alert, Enobio, and Mindwave Fp1 power spectra were similar. Muse showed a broadband increase in power spectra and the highest relative variation across test-retest acquisitions. Consumer systems were more prone to artifact due to eye blinks and muscle movement in the frontal region. Conclusions: EEG data can be successfully collected from all four systems tested. Although there was slightly more time required for application, medical systems offer clear advantages in data quality, reliability, and depth of analysis over the consumer systems. Significance: This evaluation provides evidence for informed selection of EEG systemsappropriate for clinical trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 256 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 256 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 17%
Researcher 40 16%
Student > Master 37 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 5%
Other 33 13%
Unknown 68 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 40 16%
Neuroscience 36 14%
Psychology 23 9%
Computer Science 18 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 7%
Other 40 16%
Unknown 82 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,645,652
of 25,186,033 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#762
of 7,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,691
of 323,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#21
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,186,033 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.