Dry electrodes for electroencephalography (EEG) allow new fields of application, including telemedicine, mobile EEG, emergency EEG, and long-term repetitive measurements for research, neurofeedback, or brain–computer interfaces. Different dry electrode technologies have been proposed and validated in comparison to conventional gel-based electrodes. Most previous studies have been performed at a single center and by single operators. We conducted a multi-center and multi-operator study validating multipin dry electrodes to study the reproducibility and generalizability of their performance in different environments and for different operators. Moreover, we aimed to study the interrelation of operator experience, preparation time, and wearing comfort on the EEG signal quality. EEG acquisitions using dry and gel-based EEG caps were carried out in 6 different countries with 115 volunteers, recording electrode-skin impedances, resting state EEG and evoked activity. The dry cap showed average channel reliability of 81% but higher average impedances than the gel-based cap. However, the dry EEG caps required 62% less preparation time. No statistical differences were observed between the gel-based and dry EEG signal characteristics in all signal metrics. We conclude that the performance of the dry multipin electrodes is highly reproducible, whereas the primary influences on channel reliability and signal quality are operator skill and experience.

17Recent research posits that the cognitive system samples target stimuli in a rhythmic 18 fashion, characterized by target detection fluctuating at frequencies of ~3-8 Hz. Besides 19 prioritized encoding of targets, a key cognitive function is the protection of working 20 memory from distractor intrusion. Here, we test to which degree the vulnerability of working 21 memory to distraction is rhythmic. In an Irrelevant-Speech Task, N = 23 human participants 22

Recent research posits that the cognitive system samples target stimuli in a rhythmic fashion, characterized by target detection fluctuating at frequencies of ~3-8 Hz. Besides prioritized encoding of targets, a key cognitive function is the protection of working memory from distractor intrusion. Here, we test to which degree the vulnerability of working memory to distraction is rhythmic. In an Irrelevant-Speech Task, N = 23 human participants had to retain the serial order of nine numbers in working memory while being distracted by task-irrelevant speech with variable temporal onsets. The magnitude of the distractorevoked N1 component in the event-related potential as well as behavioural recall accuracy, both measures of memory distraction, were periodically modulated by distractor onset time in approximately 2-4 cycles per second (Hz). Critically, an underlying 2.5-Hz rhythm explained variation in both measures of distraction such that stronger phasic distractor encoding mediated lower phasic memory recall accuracy. In a behavioural follow-up experiment, we tested whether these results would replicate in a task design without rhythmic presentation of target items. Participants (N = 6 with on average >2,500 trials, each) retained two line-figures in memory while being distracted by acoustic noise of varying onset across trials. In agreement with the main experiment, the temporal onset of the distractor periodically modulated memory performance. These results suggest that during working memory retention, the human cognitive system implements distractor suppression in a temporally dynamic fashion, reflected in ~400-ms long cycles of high versus low distractibility..

No abstract

Human environments comprise plenty of task-irrelevant sensory inputs, which are potentially distracting. Auditory distractors often possess an inherent temporal structure. However, it is largely unknown whether and how the temporal regularity of distractors interferes with goal-directed cognitive processes, such as working memory. Here, we tested a total sample of N = 90 participants across four working memory tasks with sequences of temporally regular versus irregular distractors. Temporal irregularity was operationalized by a final tone onset time that violated an otherwise regular tone sequence (Experiment 1), by a sequence of tones with irregular onset-to-onset delays (Experiment 2), and by sequences of speech items with irregular onset-to-onset delays (Experiments 3 and 4). Across all experiments, temporal regularity of distractors did not modulate participants’ primary performance metric, that is, accuracy in recalling items from working memory. Instead, temporal regularity of distractors modulated secondary performance metrics: for regular versus irregular distractors, recall of the first item from memory was faster (Experiment 3) and the response bias was more conservative (Experiment 4). Taken together, the present results provide evidence that the temporal regularity of task-irrelevant input does not inevitably affect the precision of memory representations (reflected in the primary performance metric accuracy) but rather the response behavior (reflected in secondary performance metrics like response speed and bias). Our findings emphasize that a comprehensive understanding of auditory distraction requires that existing models of attention include often-neglected secondary performance metrics to understand how different features of auditory distraction reach awareness and impact cognition and behavior.