A framework for the comparison of different EEG acquisition solutions

TL;DR

This paper proposes a comprehensive framework for benchmarking EEG hardware, including data collection, analysis, and statistical methods, to objectively compare device performance for different neurophysiological applications.

Contribution

It introduces a novel benchmarking framework for EEG devices, incorporating multiple protocols and analysis methods, to objectively assess and compare hardware performance.

Findings

Spectral SNR in alpha band shows limited discrimination between devices.

AEP SNR varies significantly, indicating importance of acquisition settings.

Inter-individual differences significantly affect EEG signal quality.

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to propose a framework for the benchmarking of EEG amplifiers, headsets, and electrodes providing objective recommendation for a given application. The framework covers: data collection paradigm, data analysis, and statistical framework. To illustrate, data was collected from 12 different devices totaling up to 6 subjects per device. Two data acquisition protocols were implemented: a resting-state protocol eyes-open (EO) and eyes-closed (EC), and an Auditory Evoked Potential (AEP) protocol. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) on alpha band (EO/EC) and Event Related Potential (ERP) were extracted as objective quantification of physiologically meaningful information. Then, visual representation, univariate statistical analysis, and multivariate model were performed to increase results interpretability. Objective criteria show that the spectral SNR in alpha does not provide much discrimination between systems, suggesting that the acquisition quality might not be of primary importance for spectral and specifically alpha-based applications. On the contrary, AEP SNR proved much more variable stressing the importance of the acquisition setting for ERP experiments. The multivariate analysis identified some individuals and some systems as independent statistically significant contributors to the SNR. It highlights the importance of inter-individual differences in neurophysiological experiments (sample size) and suggests some device might objectively be superior to others when it comes to ERP recordings. However, the illustration of the proposed benchmarking framework suffers from severe limitations including small sample size and sound card jitter in the auditory stimulations. While these limitations hinders a definite ranking of the evaluated hardware, we believe the proposed benchmarking framework to be a modest yet valuable contribution to the field.