Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32251333›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Comparison between a wireless dry electrode EEG system with a conventional wired wet electrode EEG system for clinical applications.

Hermann Hinrichs, Michael Scholz, Anne Katrin Baum, Julia W Y Kam, Robert T Knight, Hans-Jochen Heinze

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

87 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 208 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Hermann HinrichsDepartment of Neurology, Otto-von-Guericke University, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. hermann.hinrichs@med.ovgu.de.
Michael ScholzDepartment of Neurology, Otto-von-Guericke University, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
Anne Katrin BaumDepartment of Neurology, Otto-von-Guericke University, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
Julia W Y KamHelen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California - Berkeley, 132 Barker Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2369-2148
Robert T KnightHelen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California - Berkeley, 132 Barker Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA.
Hans-Jochen HeinzeDepartment of Neurology, Otto-von-Guericke University, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases · DEOtto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg · DEUniversity of California, Berkeley · US

Funding

Attention, Orientation and the Human Prefrontal CortexR01NS021135 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS · PI Robert Thomas Knight · 1985 to 2026
$6.5M
ATTENTION, ORIENTATION, & THE HUMAN PREFRONTAL CORTEXR37NS021135 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI KNIGHT, ROBERT THOMAS · 2013 to 2019
$3.6M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS021135NINDS NIH HHS R37 NS021135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dry electrode electroencephalogram (EEG) recording combined with wireless data transmission offers an alternative tool to conventional wet electrode EEG systems. However, the question remains whether the signal quality of dry electrode recordings is comparable to wet electrode recordings in the clinical context. We recorded the resting state EEG (rsEEG), the visual evoked potentials (VEP) and the visual P300 (P3) from 16 healthy subjects (age range: 26-79 years) and 16 neurological patients who reported subjective memory impairment (age range: 50-83 years). Each subject took part in two recordings on different days, one with 19 dry electrodes and another with 19 wet electrodes. They reported their preferred EEG system. Comparisons of the rsEEG recordings were conducted qualitatively by independent visual evaluation by two neurologists blinded to the EEG system used and quantitatively by spectral analysis of the rsEEG. The P100 visual evoked potential (VEP) and P3 event-related potential (ERP) were compared in terms of latency, amplitude and pre-stimulus noise. The majority of subjects preferred the dry electrode headset. Both neurologists reported that all rsEEG traces were comparable between the wet and dry electrode headsets. Absolute Alpha and Beta power during rest did not statistically differ between the two EEG systems (p > 0.05 in all cases). However, Theta and Delta power was slightly higher with the dry electrodes (p = 0.0004 for Theta and p < 0.0001 for Delta). For ERPs, the mean latencies and amplitudes of the P100 VEP and P3 ERP showed comparable values (p > 0.10 in all cases) with a similar spatial distribution for both wet and dry electrode systems. These results suggest that the signal quality, ease of set-up and portability of the dry electrode EEG headset used in our study comply with the needs of clinical applications.

Indexed as

ElectrodesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overElectroencephalographyHumansMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID32251333
PMCPMC7090045
OpenAlexW3012589689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.