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

H. Gamboa (Editor), Femke Nijboer, B.L.A. van de Laar, H. Plácido da Silva (Editor), K. Gilleade (Editor), Steven Gerritsen, Antinus Nijholt, S. Bermúdez i Badia (Editor), Mannes Poel, S. Fairclough (Editor)

  • 8 Citations

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.
Original languageUndefined
Pages (from-to)500-511
Number of pages12
JournalInteracting with computers
Volume27
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2015

Fingerprint

Brain computer interface
Electroencephalography
Technology transfer
Brain
Communication
Water
Experiments

Keywords

  • EWI-25509
  • HMI-MI: MULTIMODAL INTERACTIONS
  • HMI-HF: Human Factors
  • electroencephalogram
  • Physiological computing
  • Brain-Computer Interface
  • Usability
  • Wearables
  • METIS-312468
  • IR-97704
  • consumer health

Cite this

Gamboa, H. (Ed.), Nijboer, F., van de Laar, B. L. A., Plácido da Silva, H. (Ed.), Gilleade, K. (Ed.), Gerritsen, S., ... Fairclough, S. (Ed.) (2015). Usability of Three Electroencephalogram Headsets for Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Within Subject Comparison. 27(5), 500-511. DOI: 10.1093/iwc/iwv023

Gamboa, H. (Editor); Nijboer, Femke; van de Laar, B.L.A.; Plácido da Silva, H. (Editor); Gilleade, K. (Editor); Gerritsen, Steven; Nijholt, Antinus; Bermúdez i Badia, S. (Editor); Poel, Mannes; Fairclough, S. (Editor) / Usability of Three Electroencephalogram Headsets for Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Within Subject Comparison.

Vol. 27, No. 5, 09.2015, p. 500-511.

Research output: Scientific - peer-reviewArticle

@article{ad18d5d36e304509a845beaa9f920dc3,
title = "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.",
keywords = "EWI-25509, HMI-MI: MULTIMODAL INTERACTIONS, HMI-HF: Human Factors, electroencephalogram, Physiological computing, Brain-Computer Interface, Usability, Wearables, METIS-312468, IR-97704, consumer health",
author = "H. Gamboa and Femke Nijboer and {van de Laar}, B.L.A. and {Plácido da Silva}, H. and K. Gilleade and Steven Gerritsen and Antinus Nijholt and {Bermúdez i Badia}, S. and Mannes Poel and S. Fairclough",
note = "eemcs-eprint-25509 ; http://eprints.ewi.utwente.nl/25509",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1093/iwc/iwv023",
volume = "27",
pages = "500--511",
number = "5",

}

Gamboa, H (ed.), Nijboer, F, van de Laar, BLA, Plácido da Silva, H (ed.), Gilleade, K (ed.), Gerritsen, S, Nijholt, A, Bermúdez i Badia, S (ed.), Poel, M & Fairclough, S (ed.) 2015, 'Usability of Three Electroencephalogram Headsets for Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Within Subject Comparison' vol 27, no. 5, pp. 500-511. DOI: 10.1093/iwc/iwv023

Usability of Three Electroencephalogram Headsets for Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Within Subject Comparison. / Gamboa, H. (Editor); Nijboer, Femke; van de Laar, B.L.A.; Plácido da Silva, H. (Editor); Gilleade, K. (Editor); Gerritsen, Steven; Nijholt, Antinus; Bermúdez i Badia, S. (Editor); Poel, Mannes; Fairclough, S. (Editor).

Vol. 27, No. 5, 09.2015, p. 500-511.

Research output: Scientific - peer-reviewArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Usability of Three Electroencephalogram Headsets for Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Within Subject Comparison

AU - Nijboer,Femke

AU - van de Laar,B.L.A.

AU - Gerritsen,Steven

AU - Nijholt,Antinus

AU - Poel,Mannes

A2 - Gamboa,H.

A2 - Plácido da Silva,H.

A2 - Gilleade,K.

A2 - Bermúdez i Badia,S.

A2 - Fairclough,S.

N1 - eemcs-eprint-25509 ; http://eprints.ewi.utwente.nl/25509

PY - 2015/9

Y1 - 2015/9

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - EWI-25509

KW - HMI-MI: MULTIMODAL INTERACTIONS

KW - HMI-HF: Human Factors

KW - electroencephalogram

KW - Physiological computing

KW - Brain-Computer Interface

KW - Usability

KW - Wearables

KW - METIS-312468

KW - IR-97704

KW - consumer health

U2 - 10.1093/iwc/iwv023

DO - 10.1093/iwc/iwv023

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 500

EP - 511

IS - 5

ER -

Gamboa H, (ed.), Nijboer F, van de Laar BLA, Plácido da Silva H, (ed.), Gilleade K, (ed.), Gerritsen S et al. Usability of Three Electroencephalogram Headsets for Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Within Subject Comparison. 2015 Sep;27(5):500-511. Available from, DOI: 10.1093/iwc/iwv023