Usability of Three Electroencephalogram Headsets for Brain–Computer Interfaces: A Within Subject Comparison

Abstract

Currently the field of brain-computer interfacing is increasingly focused on developing usable brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) to better ensure technology transfer and acceptance. Many studies have investigated the usability of BCI applications as a whole. Here we aim to investigate one specific component of an electroencephalogram (EEG)-based BCI system: the acquisition component. This study compares on the usability of three different EEG headsets in the context of a P300-based BCI application for communication. Thirteen participants took part in a within-subject experiment. Participants were randomly given a Biosemi, Emotiv EPOC or g.Sahara headset. After every session offline classification accuracy (efficacy) was calculated and usability factors (perceived efficiency and user satisfaction) were measured using questionnaires. The 32-channel Biosemi headset offered the highest accuracy (88.5%) compared with the 8-channel g.Sahara (62.7%) and the 14-channel Emotiv (61.7%). There was no difference in accuracy between the Biosemi and the g.Sahara when comparing the same 8 channels. The Biosemi and g.Sahara were rated as more comfortable than the Emotiv. The Emotiv was rated as best for aesthetics. System setup time was highest for the Biosemi headset when compared with the g.Sahara and the Emotiv. Without information about the effectiveness, participants preferred the Emotiv. We recommend the use of a gelled headset for applications which require high accuracy and efficiency and water-based or dry headsets when aesthetics, easy setup and fun are important. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS• This systematic within-subject study compares the usability of three electroencephalogram systems in a classical brain-computer interfaces paradigm. • Conventional gelled electrodes were found to be more effective and efficient than water-based electrodes.• Participants valued their appearance with the system and ease of setup higher than comfort.

Comparison of an Open-hardware Electroencephalography Amplifier with Medical Grade Device in Brain-computer Interface Applications

“…It will produce a slight offset, hence a slight inaccuracy. Another alternative is to make separate measures by repeating the recordings with each system (Nijboer et al, 2015), but once again the conditions could not be exactly the same.…”

EEG-based brain–computer interfaces

“…Nijboer et al [31] reported that a 32-channel Biosemi system produced higher P300-based BCI accuracy than an 8-channel g.Sahara or 14-channel EPOC systems; however, the BioSemi system and the g.Sahara system were comparable when their performances using the same eight electrode sites were compared. Hariston et al [32] compared the EPOC, QUASAR, and B-Alert X-10 (Advanced Brain Monitoring) systems with the BioSemi system, which they considered the gold standard.…”

Brain‐computer interfaces for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

“…Too much pressure may be uncomfortable for the user, whereas insufficient pressure affects the quality of the recording. Users have found that the jell used with typical wet electrodes is unpleasant, but dry electrodes may not yet produce comparable results . BCI performance would be improved by a better signal‐to‐noise ratio than that produced by current sensor technology.…”