Commercial wireless versus standard stationary EEG systems for personalized emotional brain-computer interfaces: a preliminary reliability check

  • Derrick Matthew Buchanan (1) Neuroscience of Imagination Cognition Emotion Research Laboratory, Ontario, Canada. (2) Department of Neuroscience, Carleton University, Ontario, Canada.
  • Jeremy Grant (1) Neuroscience of Imagination Cognition Emotion Research Laboratory, Ontario, Canada. (2) Department of Neuroscience, Carleton University, Ontario, Canada.
  • Amedeo D'Angiulli (1) Neuroscience of Imagination Cognition Emotion Research Laboratory, Ontario, Canada. (2) Department of Neuroscience, Carleton University, Ontario, Canada.
Keywords: arousal, valence, brain-computer interfaces, EEG, wireless

Abstract

We present a preliminary data-based assessment of measurement reliability of the commercial 14-electrode Emotiv EPOCTMEEG wireless system in distinguishing between electrophysiological states of emotional function, as compared to a standard research-lab stationary 32-electrode EEG system for personalized single-individual use.  Individual observers completed two tasks designed to elicit neural changes in emotional arousal and valence while simultaneously recording their EEGs with both systems in separate sessions. Participants observed emotion-laden words from the ANEW database and images from the IAPS database, both widely used and validated databases for emotional processes in multidisciplinary research. The pattern of results distinguished between high and low arousal and valence states using the stationary traditional system, but not the commercial device. Also, the latter device recorded EEG band frequencies at a much lower resolution and frequency range than the standard system. These findings suggest poor validity when using the commercial device and therefore should be cautioned against in a research setting.

References

Bradley MM, Lang PJ. Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical Report C-1, The Center for Research in Psychophysiology. University of Florida. 1999.

Duvinage M, Castermans T, Petieau M, Hoellinger T, Cheron G, Dutoit T. Performance of the Emotiv Epoc headset for P300-based applications. Biomed Eng Online. 2013;12:56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-925X-12-56

Genest C. Vincentization Revisited. The Annals of Statistics. 1992;20(2):1137. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176348676

Hilgard, ER (1951). Methods and procedures in the study of learning. In Stevens, SS (Ed.) Handbook of experimental psychology. New York, Wiley, p.517-567.

Jurcak V, Tsuzuki D, Dan I. 10/20, 10/10, and 10/5 systems revisited: their validity as relative head-surface-based positioning systems. Neuroimage. 2007;34(4):1600-1611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.09.024

Kassam KS, Markey AR, Cherkassky VL, Loewenstein G, Just MA. Identifying Emotions on the Basis of Neural Activation. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(6):e66032. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066032

Lang PJ, Bradley MM, Cuthbert BN. International affective picture system (IAPS): Technical manual and affective ratings. Psychology. 1997;77.

Lang PJ, Greenwald MK, Bradley MM, Hamm AO. Looking at pictures: affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions. Psychophysiology. 1993;30(3):261–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb03352.x

Lin Y-P, Wang C-H, Jung T-P, Wu T-L, Jeng S-K, Duann J-R, et al. EEG-based emotion recognition in music listening. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2010;57(7):1798-1806. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2010.2048568

Maskeliunas R, Damasevicius R, Martisius I, Vasiljevas M. Consumer-grade EEG devices: are they usable for control tasks? PeerJ. 2016;4:e1746. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1746

Messer SC, Angold A, Costello EJ. Development of a short questionnaire for use in epidemiological studies of depression in children and adolescents: Factor composition and structure across development. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res, 1995;5:251-262.

Nijboer F, van de Laar B, Gerritsen S, Nijholt A, Poel M. Usability of Three Electroencephalogram Headsets for Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Within Subject Comparison. Interact Comput. 2015;27(5):500. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwv023

Rosnow RL, Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. Contrasts and correlations in effect-size estimation. Psychol Sci. 2001;11(6):446-453. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00287

Ross W, Morris A, Ulieru M, Guyard AB. RECON: An Adaptive Human-Machine System for Supporting Intelligence Analysis. Nat Genet. 2013;45(10):1109. https://doi.org/10.1109/smc.2013.138

Scott GG, O'Donnell PJ, Leuthold H, Sereno SC. Early emotion word processing: evidence from event-related potentials. Biol Psychol. 2008;80(1):95-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.03.010

Vincent SB. The functions of the vibrissae in the behavior of the white rat. Behavior Monographs. University of Chicago. 1912;5(1).

Published
2019-03-11
How to Cite
Buchanan, D., Grant, J. and D’Angiulli, A. (2019) “Commercial wireless versus standard stationary EEG systems for personalized emotional brain-computer interfaces: a preliminary reliability check”, Neuroscience Research Notes, 2(1), pp. 7-15. doi: 10.31117/neuroscirn.v2i1.21.
Section
Research Notes