Consumer-grade EEG devices: are they usable for control tasks?

Rytis Maskeliunas; Robertas Damasevicius; Ignas Martisius; Mindaugas Vasiljevas

doi:10.7717/peerj.1746

Consumer-grade EEG devices: are they usable for control tasks?

PeerJ. 2016 Mar 22:4:e1746. doi: 10.7717/peerj.1746. eCollection 2016.

Authors

Rytis Maskeliunas¹, Robertas Damasevicius², Ignas Martisius³, Mindaugas Vasiljevas²

Affiliations

¹ Multimedia Engineering Department, Kaunas University of Technology , Kaunas , Lithuania.
² Software Engineering Department, Kaunas University of Technology , Kaunas , Lithuania.
³ Computer Science Department, Kaunas University of Technology , Kaunas , Lithuania.

Abstract

We present the evaluation of two well-known, low-cost consumer-grade EEG devices: the Emotiv EPOC and the Neurosky MindWave. Problems with using the consumer-grade EEG devices (BCI illiteracy, poor technical characteristics, and adverse EEG artefacts) are discussed. The experimental evaluation of the devices, performed with 10 subjects asked to perform concentration/relaxation and blinking recognition tasks, is given. The results of statistical analysis show that both devices exhibit high variability and non-normality of attention and meditation data, which makes each of them difficult to use as an input to control tasks. BCI illiteracy may be a significant problem, as well as setting up of the proper environment of the experiment. The results of blinking recognition show that using the Neurosky device means recognition accuracy is less than 50%, while the Emotiv device has achieved a recognition accuracy of more than 75%; for tasks that require concentration and relaxation of subjects, the Emotiv EPOC device has performed better (as measured by the recognition accuracy) by ∼9%. Therefore, the Emotiv EPOC device may be more suitable for control tasks using the attention/meditation level or eye blinking than the Neurosky MindWave device.

Keywords: BCI; Consumer-grade EEG; Usability.

Grants and funding

The authors received funding from the COST Action IC1303—Architectures, Algorithms and Platforms for Enhanced Living Environments (AAPELE). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.