Comparison of mobile and clinical EEG sensors through resting state simultaneous data collection.

Development of mobile sensors brings new opportunities to medical research. In particular, mobile electroencephalography (EEG) devices can be potentially used in low cost screening for epilepsy and other neurological and psychiatric disorders. The necessary condition for such applications is thoughtful validation in the specific medical context. As part of validation and quality assurance, we developed a computer-based analysis pipeline, which aims to compare the EEG signal acquired by a mobile EEG device to the one collected by a medically approved clinical-grade EEG device. Both signals are recorded simultaneously during 30 min long sessions in resting state. The data are collected from 22 patients with epileptiform abnormalities in EEG. In order to compare two multichannel EEG signals with differently placed references and electrodes, a novel data processing pipeline is proposed. It allows deriving matching pairs of time series which are suitable for similarity assessment through Pearson correlation. The average correlation of 0.64 is achieved on a test dataset, which can be considered a promising result, taking the positions shift due to the simultaneous electrode placement into account.

Can commercially available wearable EEG devices be used for diagnostic purposes? An explorative pilot study.

Electroencephalography (EEG) is a core element in the diagnosis of epilepsy syndromes and can help to monitor antiseizure treatment. Mobile EEG (mEEG) devices are increasingly available on the consumer market and may offer easier access to EEG recordings especially in rural or resource-poor areas. The usefulness of consumer-grade devices for clinical purposes is still underinvestigated. Here, we compared EEG traces of a commercially available mEEG device (Emotiv EPOC) to a simultaneously recorded clinical video EEG (vEEG). Twenty-two adult patients (11 female, mean age 40.2 years) undergoing noninvasive vEEG monitoring for clinical purposes were prospectively enrolled. The EEG recordings were evaluated by 10 independent raters with unmodifiable view settings. The individual evaluations were compared with respect to the presence of abnormal EEG findings (regional slowing, epileptiform potentials, seizure pattern). Video EEG yielded a sensitivity of 56% and specificity of 88% for abnormal EEG findings, whereas mEEG reached 39% and 85%, respectively. Interrater reliability coefficients were better in vEEG as compared to mEEG (ϰ = 0.50 vs. 0.30), corresponding to a moderate and fair agreement. Intrarater reliability between mEEG and vEEG evaluations of simultaneous recordings of a given participant was moderate (ϰ = 0.48). Given the limitations of our exploratory pilot study, our results suggest that vEEG is superior to mEEG, but that mEEG can be helpful for diagnostic purposes. We present the first quantitative comparison of simultaneously acquired clinical and mobile consumer-grade EEG for a clinical use-case.