| Literature DB >> 24886096 |
Andrei Jakab1, Antti Kulkas, Timo Salpavaara, Pasi Kauppinen, Jarmo Verho, Hannu Heikkilä, Ville Jäntti.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although clinical applications such as emergency medicine and prehospital care could benefit from a fast-mounting electroencephalography (EEG) recording system, the lack of specifically designed equipment restricts the use of EEG in these environments.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24886096 PMCID: PMC4036392 DOI: 10.1186/1475-925X-13-60
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Figure 1The emEEG system. It consists of recording software (left), quick-application electrode cap (top-right), and wireless EEG recorder (bottom-right).
Summary of the characteristics of the developed emEEG device and of a commercial device
| 6 | 32 | |
| 16 | 16 | |
| 0.02 | 0.15 | |
| 1000 | 2000 | |
| 0.2 – 90 | 0.05 – 500 | |
| 80 | >115 | |
| ≈1000 | >100 | |
| Three axes | none |
Figure 2System diagram depicting the major components of the six channel emEEG system. For clarity, only two of the six measurement channels are shown.
Common mode rejection and root mean square noise level of the emEEG system’s six channels
| 83 | 0.40 | |
| 82 | 0.40 | |
| 84 | 0.40 | |
| 82 | 0.42 | |
| 82 | 0.41 | |
| 82 | 0.40 | |
| 83 | 0.41 |
The CMRR was computed at 50 Hz and the RMS noise was calculated over the 0.2 – 90 Hz frequency range.
Figure 3Comparison of two signals recorded in parallel with the emEEG and a NicoletOne V32 system. At the top is the comparison of a 5 seconds window of the EEG signals measured with the two systems from subject 1 in the ICU of the Seinäjoki Central Hospital (emEEG signal in black and NicoletOne V32 signal in gray). At the bottom is the computational difference of the two signals (mean difference is 0.59 μV and standard deviation is 0.44 μV).
Comparison of data recorded in parallel with the emEEG system and a NicoletOne V32 system
| 1.3 ± 1.6 | 1.3 ± 1.6 | 1.0 ± 1.4 | 1.4 ± 1.9 | 1.3 ± 1.6 | |
| 1.1 ± 1.3 | 0.9 ± 1.0 | 0.8 ± 0.8 | 0.9 ± 0.9 | 0.9 ± 1.0 | |
| 1.2 ± 1.5 | 0.9 ± 1.2 | 0.7 ± 1.0 | 1.1 ± 1.9 | 1.0 ± 1.4 | |
| 1.0 ± 1.1 | 0.7 ± 0.8 | 0.7 ± 0.9 | 0.7 ± 1.8 | 0.8 ± 1.1 | |
| 1.3 ± 1.7 | 0.8 ± 1.1 | 0.7 ± 0.9 | 1.0 ± 1.0 | 0.9 ± 1.2 | |
| 1.2 ± 1.5 | 1.2 ± 1.5 | 0.9 ± 1.2 | 1.2 ± 1.7 | 1.1 ± 1.5 | |
| 1.2 ± 1.4 | 1.0 ± 1.2 | 0.8 ± 1.0 | 1.1 ± 1.6 | 1.0 ± 1.3 | |
The table displays the mean difference ± SD of the absolute difference signal computed from the EEGs recorded simultaneously with both systems (units: μV).
Results of the patient measurements
| 23 | 25 | 55 | 58 | 75 | |
| Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | |
| Clin.Depart. | Clin.Depart. | ICU | ICU | Clin.Depart. | |
| Normal | Normal | Highly Abnormal | Highly Abnormal | Highly Abnormal | |
| No | No | No | No | Yes | |
| | | | | | |
| Normal | Normal | Normal | Highly Abnormal | Highly Abnormal | |
| No | No | No | No | Yes | |
| | | | | | |
| Normal | Normal | Normal | Highly Abnormal | Highly Abnormal | |
| No | No | No | No | Yes |
The results from the patient measurements were evaluated by two experienced clinical neurophysiologists. Three grades were used in the general estimation, normal, abnormal and highly abnormal based on the clinical practice. The recording location at the Department of Clinical Neurophysiology is denoted as Clin.Depart. and the intensive care unit as ICU.