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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Evaluation of Different EEG Acquisition Systems Concerning Their Suitability for Building a Brain–Computer Interface: Case Studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnins.2016.00441 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andreas Pinegger, Selina C. Wriessnegger, Josef Faller, Gernot R. Müller-Putz |
| Abstract |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Austria | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 106 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 31% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 18% |
| Researcher | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 24 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 35 | 32% |
| Neuroscience | 16 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 5% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 30 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 October 2016.
All research outputs
#15,740,207
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6,688
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,316
of 330,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#70
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 330,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.