Abstract
Given the rapid development of light weight EEG devices which we have witnessed the past decade, it is reasonable to ask to which extent neuroscience could now be taken outside the lab. In this study, we have designed an EEG paradigm well suited for deployment “in the wild.” The paradigm is tested in repeated recordings on 20 subjects, on eight different occasions (4 in the laboratory, 4 in the subject's own home). By calculating the inter subject, intra subject and inter location variance, we find that the inter location variation for this paradigm is considerably less than the inter subject variation. We believe the paradigm is representative of a large group of other relevant paradigms. This means that given the positive results in this study, we find that if a research paradigm would benefit from being performed in less controlled environments, we expect limited problems in doing so.
Highlights
With the advent of smart devices and wearable technologies, real life EEG recordings are getting increasingly feasible and potentially useful (Debener et al, 2012, 2015; Mullen et al, 2015)
By analyzing the evoked EEG from a behavioral EEG paradigm performed under many different conditions, we are able to compare the variation in response due to subject difference, location differences and that driven by the uncertainty of doing EEG measurements (“intra subject variation”)
We find that for our paradigm, inter subject and intra subject variation contributes more to measurement noise than switching between laboratory and home measurements
Summary
With the advent of smart devices and wearable technologies, real life EEG recordings are getting increasingly feasible and potentially useful (Debener et al, 2012, 2015; Mullen et al, 2015). With the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the simple need to continue clinical investigations and EEG research outside laboratories has been added to the list. Given that the majority of existing EEG literature deals with single measurements on many subjects, there is limited data on the likely changes to results, or any decrease in data quality, that would come about from performing multiple measurements on the same subjects, in different locations, possibly outside of the laboratory and the immediate control of the investigator. We find some studies focusing on intra- and inter-subject variability in the lab. Corsi-Cabrera et al (1997, 2007) looked at patterns of correlation in scalp EEG in women, and found stable differences between subjects. Stastny et al (2014) showed that intersubject variability in the μ-rhythm could be used to identify subjects between sessions. Dalebout and Robey (1997) showed in 1997 that the P300 response varies more between subjects within them, and in the late 80’ies Lauter et al showed extensively that audiological responses follow the same pattern (Lauter and Karzon, 1990a,b)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
