User Experience of 7 Mobile Electroencephalography Devices: Comparative Study

Abstract

Background Registration of brain activity has become increasingly popular and offers a way to identify the mental state of the user, prevent inappropriate workload, and control other devices by means of brain-computer interfaces. However, electroencephalography (EEG) is often related to user acceptance issues regarding the measuring technique. Meanwhile, emerging mobile EEG technology offers the possibility of gel-free signal acquisition and wireless signal transmission. Nonetheless, user experience research about the new devices is lacking. Objective This study aimed to evaluate user experience aspects of emerging mobile EEG devices and, in particular, to investigate wearing comfort and issues related to emotional design. Methods We considered 7 mobile EEG devices and compared them for their wearing comfort, type of electrodes, visual appearance, and subjects’ preference for daily use. A total of 24 subjects participated in our study and tested every device independently of the others. The devices were selected in a randomized order and worn on consecutive day sessions of 60-min duration. At the end of each session, subjects rated the devices by means of questionnaires. Results Results indicated a highly significant change in maximal possible wearing duration among the EEG devices (χ26=40.2, n=24; P<.001). Regarding the visual perception of devices’ headset design, results indicated a significant change in the subjects’ ratings (χ26=78.7, n=24; P<.001). Results of the subjects’ ratings regarding the practicability of the devices indicated highly significant differences among the EEG devices (χ26=83.2, n=24; P<.001). Ranking order and posthoc tests offered more insight and indicated that pin electrodes had the lowest wearing comfort, in particular, when coupled with a rigid, heavy headset. Finally, multiple linear regression for each device separately revealed that users were not willing to accept less comfort for a more attractive headset design. Conclusions The study offers a differentiated look at emerging mobile and gel-free EEG technology and the relation between user experience aspects and device preference. Our research could be seen as a precondition for the development of usable applications with wearables and contributes to consumer health informatics and health-enabling technologies. Furthermore, our results provided guidance for the technological development direction of new EEG devices related to the aspects of emotional design.

Indexing Mental Workload During Simulated Air Traffic Control Tasks by Means of Dual Frequency Head Maps

“…With the development and availability of low-cost and easy-touse EEG sensors, amplifiers, and signal-processing algorithms over the last 20 years (Lopez-Gordo et al, 2014;Radüntz, 2018;Flumeri et al, 2019;Radüntz and Meffert, 2019), certain frequency bands of the EEG have proven to be particularly informative and were therefore being used more and more frequently for mental-workload detection. The numerous studies published after the year 2000 were fairly different, depending on the specific question, purpose, and expertise of the authors (Lin et al, 2006;Berka et al, 2007;Kohlmorgen et al, 2007;Borghini et al, 2014;Ke et al, 2014;Bashivan et al, 2015;Aricò et al, 2016).…”

“…For their practical application at the workplace, it is also important that their applicability is examined not only in the laboratory but also under more realistic conditions. This becomes particularly important when considering the technological advancements regarding mobile EEG technology that have simplified signal registration outside of shielded rooms (Mihajlovic et al, 2015;Aricò et al, 2018;Radüntz, 2018;Baek et al, 2019;Radüntz and Meffert, 2019).…”

Evaluation of EEG Headset Mounting for Brain-Computer Interface-Based Stroke Rehabilitation by Patients, Therapists, and Relatives

“…However, this electrode position is not relevant for detecting movement intentions from the motor cortex, and it took a considerably longer time (up to 10 times as long) to mount the other headsets, and six out of nine patients were unable to mount the headsets by themselves. This is primarily due to their motor impairments, and that it was difficult to fill the electrode housings with gel in the Quick-Cap using the syringe, placing the double-sided adhesive tape on the cEEGrid electrode and rolling the felt inserts for the Water-based electrodes, healthy users also have difficulties in setting up gel-based headsets (Radüntz and Meffert, 2019). This suggests that the current headsets based on wet electrodes that cover the motor cortex are not suited for selfmounting by stroke patients.…”

“…The therapist can then spend more time on other types of training and patients, or the patients could be training in their own home. Many of the caps currently commercially available may be difficult to mount by oneself since the electrodes must cover the motor cortex to record the electrical activity associated with attempted movements, and only a few comparisons between headsets or headset usability have been made (Ekandem et al, 2012;Mayaud et al, 2013;Das et al, 2014;Hairston et al, 2014;Nijboer et al, 2015;Halford et al, 2016;Izdebski et al, 2016;Pinegger et al, 2016;Käthner et al, 2017;Zander et al, 2017;Radüntz and Meffert, 2019). These studies relied on different metrics but often report on comfort and setup time.…”

“…Most evaluations of headsets and electrode types used healthy subjects, but a few included veterans and severely motor impaired patients (Halford et al, 2016;Käthner et al, 2017), caregivers (Käthner et al, 2017). Only in two studies, participants -healthy volunteers -mounted the headset themselves (Zander et al, 2017;Radüntz and Meffert, 2019). The studies that have investigated EEG headset usability have primarily focused on communication using P300 and EEG recordings, and not on stroke rehabilitation and self-mounting.…”