OBJECTIVE: Ear-EEG is a recording method in which EEG signals are acquired from electrodes placed on an earpiece inserted into the ear. Thereby, ear-EEG provides a noninvasive and discreet way of recording EEG, and has the potential to be used for long-term brain monitoring in real-life environments. Whereas previously reported ear-EEG recordings have been performed with wet electrodes, the objective of this study was to develop and evaluate dry-contact electrode ear-EEG. METHODS: To achieve a well-functioning dry-contact interface, a new ear-EEG platform was developed. The platform comprised actively shielded and nanostructured electrodes embedded in an individualized soft-earpiece. The platform was evaluated in a study of 12 subjects and four EEG paradigms: auditory steady-state response, steady-state visual evoked potential, mismatch negativity, and alpha-band modulation. RESULTS: Recordings from the prototyped dry-contact ear-EEG platform were compared to conventional scalp EEG recordings. When all electrodes were referenced to a common scalp electrode (Cz), the performance was on par with scalp EEG measured close to the ear. With both the measuring electrode and the reference electrode located within the ear, statistically significant (p < 0.05) responses were measured for all paradigms, although for mismatch negativity, it was necessary to use a reference located in the opposite ear, to obtain a statistically significant response. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that dry-contact electrode ear-EEG is a feasible technology for EEG recording. SIGNIFICANCE: The prototyped dry-contact ear-EEG platform represents an important technological advancement of the method in terms of user-friendliness, because it eliminates the need for gel in the electrode-skin interface.
OBJECTIVE: Ear-EEG is a recording method in which EEG signals are acquired from electrodes placed on an earpiece inserted into the ear. Thereby, ear-EEG provides a noninvasive and discreet way of recording EEG, and has the potential to be used for long-term brain monitoring in real-life environments. Whereas previously reported ear-EEG recordings have been performed with wet electrodes, the objective of this study was to develop and evaluate dry-contact electrode ear-EEG. METHODS: To achieve a well-functioning dry-contact interface, a new ear-EEG platform was developed. The platform comprised actively shielded and nanostructured electrodes embedded in an individualized soft-earpiece. The platform was evaluated in a study of 12 subjects and four EEG paradigms: auditory steady-state response, steady-state visual evoked potential, mismatch negativity, and alpha-band modulation. RESULTS: Recordings from the prototyped dry-contact ear-EEG platform were compared to conventional scalp EEG recordings. When all electrodes were referenced to a common scalp electrode (Cz), the performance was on par with scalp EEG measured close to the ear. With both the measuring electrode and the reference electrode located within the ear, statistically significant (p < 0.05) responses were measured for all paradigms, although for mismatch negativity, it was necessary to use a reference located in the opposite ear, to obtain a statistically significant response. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that dry-contact electrode ear-EEG is a feasible technology for EEG recording. SIGNIFICANCE: The prototyped dry-contact ear-EEG platform represents an important technological advancement of the method in terms of user-friendliness, because it eliminates the need for gel in the electrode-skin interface.
Authors: Martin A Skoglund; Martin Andersen; Martha M Shiell; Gitte Keidser; Mike Lind Rank; Sergi Rotger-Griful Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 5.152
Authors: Kaare B Mikkelsen; Yousef R Tabar; Simon L Kappel; Christian B Christensen; Hans O Toft; Martin C Hemmsen; Mike L Rank; Marit Otto; Preben Kidmose Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Antoine Favre-Félix; Carina Graversen; Tanveer A Bhuiyan; Martin A Skoglund; Sergi Rotger-Griful; Mike Lind Rank; Torsten Dau; Thomas Lunner Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Sourav Chandra; Jinghua Li; Babak Afsharipour; Andres F Cardona; Nina L Suresh; Limei Tian; Yujun Deng; Yishan Zhong; Zhaoqian Xie; Haixu Shen; Yonggang Huang; John A Rogers; William Z Rymer Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Mihai Musteata; Denis Gabriel Borcea; Raluca Ștefănescu; Gheorghe Solcan; Radu Lăcătuș Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 3.576