Sarah Laszlo1, Maria Ruiz-Blondet2, Negin Khalifian3, Fanny Chu4, Zhanpeng Jin5. 1. Department of Psychology, SUNY Binghamton, United States; Program in Linguistics, SUNY Binghamton, United States. Electronic address: slaszlo@binghamton.edu. 2. Department of Bioengineering, SUNY Binghamton, United States. 3. Department of Psychology, SUNY Binghamton, United States. 4. Department of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, United States. 5. Department of Bioengineering, SUNY Binghamton, United States; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, SUNY Binghamton, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Active amplification electrodes are becoming more popular for ERP data collection, as they amplify the EEG at the scalp and thereby potentially decrease the influence of ambient electrical noise. However, the performance of active electrodes has not been directly compared with that of passive electrodes in the context of collecting ERPs from a cognitive task. Here, the performance of active and passive amplification electrodes in the same digitizing amplifier system was examined. METHOD: In Experiment 1, interelectrode impedance in an electrically quiet setting was manipulated to determine whether, in such recording conditions, active electrodes can outperform passive ones. In Experiment 2, the performance of active electrodes at the limits of natural skin impedance was explored, as was the relationship between active amplification circuitry and voltage stability in averaged EOG. RESULTS: Results reveal a complex pattern of interrelations between electrode type, impedance, and voltage stability, indicating that which type of electrode is "best" depends non-trivially on the circumstances in which data are being collected. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Traditional, passive electrodes acquired the cleanest data observed in any of the acquisition conditions at very low impedance, but not at any impedance >2 kΩ. CONCLUSION: Active electrodes perform better than passive ones at all impedances other than very low ones; however, this is qualified by the additional finding that during fast voltage fluctuations, such as those most desirable in most ERP studies, active electrodes are less able to accurately follow the EEG than passive ones.
BACKGROUND: Active amplification electrodes are becoming more popular for ERP data collection, as they amplify the EEG at the scalp and thereby potentially decrease the influence of ambient electrical noise. However, the performance of active electrodes has not been directly compared with that of passive electrodes in the context of collecting ERPs from a cognitive task. Here, the performance of active and passive amplification electrodes in the same digitizing amplifier system was examined. METHOD: In Experiment 1, interelectrode impedance in an electrically quiet setting was manipulated to determine whether, in such recording conditions, active electrodes can outperform passive ones. In Experiment 2, the performance of active electrodes at the limits of natural skin impedance was explored, as was the relationship between active amplification circuitry and voltage stability in averaged EOG. RESULTS: Results reveal a complex pattern of interrelations between electrode type, impedance, and voltage stability, indicating that which type of electrode is "best" depends non-trivially on the circumstances in which data are being collected. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Traditional, passive electrodes acquired the cleanest data observed in any of the acquisition conditions at very low impedance, but not at any impedance >2 kΩ. CONCLUSION: Active electrodes perform better than passive ones at all impedances other than very low ones; however, this is qualified by the additional finding that during fast voltage fluctuations, such as those most desirable in most ERP studies, active electrodes are less able to accurately follow the EEG than passive ones.
Authors: Jesus G Cruz-Garza; Justin A Brantley; Sho Nakagome; Kimberly Kontson; Murad Megjhani; Dario Robleto; Jose L Contreras-Vidal Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Luca Ascari; Anna Marchenkova; Andrea Bellotti; Stefano Lai; Lucia Moro; Konstantin Koshmak; Alice Mantoan; Michele Barsotti; Raffaello Brondi; Giovanni Avveduto; Davide Sechi; Alberto Compagno; Pietro Avanzini; Jonas Ambeck-Madsen; Giovanni Vecchiato Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Katrin Müller; Stephanie Fröhlich; Andresa M C Germano; Jyothsna Kondragunta; Maria Fernanda Del Carmen Agoitia Hurtado; Julian Rudisch; Daniel Schmidt; Gangolf Hirtz; Peter Stollmann; Claudia Voelcker-Rehage Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2020-03-07 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Dirk J A Smit; Ole A Andreassen; Dorret I Boomsma; Scott J Burwell; David B Chorlian; Eco J C de Geus; Torbjørn Elvsåshagen; Reyna L Gordon; Jeremy Harper; Ulrich Hegerl; Tilman Hensch; William G Iacono; Philippe Jawinski; Erik G Jönsson; Jurjen J Luykx; Cyrille L Magne; Stephen M Malone; Sarah E Medland; Jacquelyn L Meyers; Torgeir Moberget; Bernice Porjesz; Christian Sander; Sanjay M Sisodiya; Paul M Thompson; Catharina E M van Beijsterveldt; Edwin van Dellen; Marc Via; Margaret J Wright Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 2.708