↓ Skip to main content

Validation of a wireless dry electrode system for electroencephalography

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Validation of a wireless dry electrode system for electroencephalography
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12984-015-0089-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah N Wyckoff, Leslie H Sherlin, Noel Larson Ford, Dale Dalke

Abstract

Electroencephalography (EEG) is a widely used neuroimaging technique with applications in healthcare, research, assessment, treatment, and neurorehabilitation. Conventional EEG systems require extensive setup time, expensive equipment, and expertise to utilize and therefore are often limited to clinical or laboratory settings. Technological advancements have made it possible to develop wireless EEG systems with dry electrodes to reduce many of these barriers. However, due to the lack of homogeneity in hardware, electrode evaluation, and methodological procedures the clinical acceptance of these systems has been limited. In this investigation the validity of a wireless dry electrode system compared to a conventional wet electrode system was assessed, while addressing methodological limitations. In Experiment 1, the signal output of both EEG systems was examined at Fz, C3, Cz, C4, and Pz using a conductive head model and generated test signals at 2.5 Hz, 10 Hz, and 39 Hz. In Experiment 2, two-minutes of eyes-closed and eyes-open EEG data was recorded simultaneously with both devices from the adjacent electrode sites in a sample of healthy adults. Between group effects and frequency*device and electrode*device interactions were assessed using a mixed ANOVA for the simulated and in vivo signal output, producing no significant effects . Bivariate correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the relationship between electrode pairs during the simultaneous in vivo recordings, indicating a significant positive relationship (all p's < .05) and larger correlation coefficients (r > ± 0.5) between the dry and wet electrode signal amplitude were observed for theta, alpha, beta 1, beta 2, beta 3, and gamma in both the eyes-closed and eyes-open conditions. This report demonstrates preliminary but compelling evidence that EEG data recorded from the wireless dry electrode system is comparable to data recorded from a conventional system. Small correlation values in delta activity were discussed in relation to minor differences in hardware filter settings, variation in electrode placement, and participant artifacts observer during the simultaneous EEG recordings. Study limitations and impact of this research on neurorehabilitation were discussed.

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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Unknown 100 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 20%
Student > Master 20 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 18%
Professor 6 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 21 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 28 27%
Neuroscience 13 13%
Psychology 11 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 24 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 23 January 2016.
All research outputs
#6,800,283
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#413
of 1,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,342
of 284,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#6
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 284,247 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.