Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37829725›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023

Assessing focus through ear-EEG: a comparative study between conventional cap EEG and mobile in- and around-the-ear EEG systems.

Gabrielle Crétot-Richert, Maarten De Vos, Stefan Debener, Martin G Bleichner, Jérémie Voix

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

5 authors.

Gabrielle Crétot-RichertÉcole de technologie supérieure (ÉTS), Université du Québec, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Maarten De VosStadius, Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Sciences & Department of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Stefan DebenerNeuropsychology Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Martin G BleichnerResearch Center for Neurosensory Science, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Jérémie VoixÉcole de technologie supérieure (ÉTS), Université du Québec, Montréal, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: As our attention is becoming a commodity that an ever-increasing number of applications are competing for, investing in modern day tools and devices that can detect our mental states and protect them from outside interruptions holds great value. Mental fatigue and distractions are impacting our ability to focus and can cause workplace injuries. Electroencephalography (EEG) may reflect concentration, and if EEG equipment became wearable and inconspicuous, innovative brain-computer interfaces (BCI) could be developed to monitor mental load in daily life situations. The purpose of this study is to investigate the potential of EEG recorded inside and around the human ear to determine levels of attention and focus. Methods: In this study, mobile and wireless ear-EEG were concurrently recorded with conventional EEG (cap) systems to collect data during tasks related to focus: an N-back task to assess working memory and a mental arithmetic task to assess cognitive workload. The power spectral density (PSD) of the EEG signal was analyzed to isolate consistent differences between mental load conditions and classify epochs using step-wise linear discriminant analysis (swLDA). Results and discussion: Results revealed that spectral features differed statistically between levels of cognitive load for both tasks. Classification algorithms were tested on spectral features from twelve and two selected channels, for the cap and the ear-EEG. A two-channel ear-EEG model evaluated the performance of two dry in-ear electrodes specifically. Single-trial classification for both tasks revealed above chance-level accuracies for all subjects, with mean accuracies of: 96% (cap-EEG) and 95% (ear-EEG) for the twelve-channel models, 76% (cap-EEG) and 74% (in-ear-EEG) for the two-channel model for the N-back task; and 82% (cap-EEG) and 85% (ear-EEG) for the twelve-channel, 70% (cap-EEG) and 69% (in-ear-EEG) for the two-channel model for the arithmetic task. These results suggest that neural oscillations recorded with ear-EEG can be used to reliably differentiate between levels of cognitive workload and working memory, in particular when multi-channel recordings are available, and could, in the near future, be integrated into wearable devices.

Indexed as

attentionbrain computer interfacecEEGridcognitive workloadear-EEGEEGmachine learningworking memory

Identifiers

PMID37829725
PMCPMC10565859

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.