Literature DB >> 28000254

High and dry? Comparing active dry EEG electrodes to active and passive wet electrodes.

Kyle E Mathewson1, Tyler J L Harrison1, Sayeed A D Kizuk1.   

Abstract

Dry electrodes are becoming popular for both lab-based and consumer-level electrophysiological-recording technologies because they better afford the ability to move traditional lab-based research into the real world. It is unclear, however, how dry electrodes compare in data quality to traditional electrodes. The current study compared three EEG electrode types: (a) passive-wet electrodes with no onboard amplification, (b) actively amplified, wet electrodes with moderate impedance levels, and low impedance levels, and (c) active-dry electrodes with very high impedance. Participants completed a classic P3 auditory oddball task to elicit characteristic EEG signatures and event-related potentials (ERPs). Across the three electrode types, we compared single-trial noise, average ERPs, scalp topographies, ERP noise, and ERP statistical power as a function of number of trials. We extended past work showing active electrodes' insensitivity to moderate levels of interelectrode impedance when compared to passive electrodes in the same amplifier. Importantly, the new dry electrode system could reliably measure EEG spectra and ERP components comparable to traditional electrode types. As expected, however, dry active electrodes with very high interelectrode impedance exhibited marked increases in single-trial and average noise levels, which decreased statistical power, requiring more trials to detect significant effects. This power decrease must be considered as a trade-off with the ease of application and long-term use. The current results help set constraints on experimental design with novel dry electrodes, and provide important evidence needed to measure brain activity in novel settings and situations.
© 2016 Society for Psychophysiological Research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active electrodes; Dry electrodes; Event-related potential; Impedance; P3

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28000254     DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12536

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychophysiology        ISSN: 0048-5772            Impact factor:   4.016


  26 in total

Review 1.  Wearable sensors: modalities, challenges, and prospects.

Authors:  J Heikenfeld; A Jajack; J Rogers; P Gutruf; L Tian; T Pan; R Li; M Khine; J Kim; J Wang; J Kim
Journal:  Lab Chip       Date:  2018-01-16       Impact factor: 6.799

2.  Workshops of the Seventh International Brain-Computer Interface Meeting: Not Getting Lost in Translation.

Authors:  Jane E Huggins; Christoph Guger; Erik Aarnoutse; Brendan Allison; Charles W Anderson; Steven Bedrick; Walter Besio; Ricardo Chavarriaga; Jennifer L Collinger; An H Do; Christian Herff; Matthias Hohmann; Michelle Kinsella; Kyuhwa Lee; Fabien Lotte; Gernot Müller-Putz; Anton Nijholt; Elmar Pels; Betts Peters; Felix Putze; Rüdiger Rupp; Gerwin Schalk; Stephanie Scott; Michael Tangermann; Paul Tubig; Thorsten Zander
Journal:  Brain Comput Interfaces (Abingdon)       Date:  2019-12-10

3.  EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interfaces.

Authors:  D J McFarland; J R Wolpaw
Journal:  Curr Opin Biomed Eng       Date:  2017-11-28

4.  The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with cognitive training on EEG spectral power in adolescent boys with ADHD: A double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial.

Authors:  Samuel J Westwood; Natali Bozhilova; Marion Criaud; Sheut-Ling Lam; Steve Lukito; Sophie Wallace-Hanlon; Olivia S Kowalczyk; Afroditi Kostara; Joseph Mathew; Bruce E Wexler; Roi Cohen Kadosh; Philip Asherson; Katya Rubia
Journal:  IBRO Neurosci Rep       Date:  2021-12-24

5.  Feasibility of assessing brain activity using mobile, in-home collection of electroencephalography: methods and analysis.

Authors:  Sonya V Troller-Renfree; Santiago Morales; Stephanie C Leach; Maureen E Bowers; Ranjan Debnath; William P Fifer; Nathan A Fox; Kimberly G Noble
Journal:  Dev Psychobiol       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 2.531

6.  Estimating the statistical power to detect set-size effects in contralateral delay activity.

Authors:  William X Q Ngiam; Kirsten C S Adam; Colin Quirk; Edward K Vogel; Edward Awh
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 4.016

7.  A Deep Learning Strategy for Automatic Sleep Staging Based on Two-Channel EEG Headband Data.

Authors:  Amelia A Casciola; Sebastiano K Carlucci; Brianne A Kent; Amanda M Punch; Michael A Muszynski; Daniel Zhou; Alireza Kazemi; Maryam S Mirian; Jason Valerio; Martin J McKeown; Haakon B Nygaard
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 3.576

Review 8.  When Is Simultaneous Recording Necessary? A Guide for Researchers Considering Combined EEG-fMRI.

Authors:  Catriona L Scrivener
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 4.677

9.  Pain Processing in a Social Context and the Link with Psychopathic Personality Traits-An Event-Related Potential Study.

Authors:  Casper H van Heck; Josi M A Driessen; Maria Amato; Marnou N van den Berg; Pritha Bhandari; Laura Bilbao-Broch; Jordi Farres-Casals; Manon Hendriks; Adrian C Jodzio; Laura Luque-Ballesteros; Christina Schöchl; Laura R Velasco-Angeles; Roel H A Weijer; Clementina M van Rijn; Marijtje L A Jongsma
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2017-09-25       Impact factor: 3.558

Review 10.  A Review of Issues Related to Data Acquisition and Analysis in EEG/MEG Studies.

Authors:  Aina Puce; Matti S Hämäläinen
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2017-05-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.