|
Dear Carlos,
I have used neuroscan a little and EGI a lot, but I do prefer Biosemi. The system is more simple and modular than EGI. I have done about 250 recordings with 4-6 year olds in pre-schools using Biosemi. While I do think it is possible to have good
signal in EGI, it is easier to troubleshoot bad signals in Biosemi, usually a single or a few bad electrodes that can be fixed with more gel. In EGI problems are often more vague and indirect. If you use Biosemi 64 channels with children, time of application
can be an issue. Two well trained assistants could do it in 15-20 minutes, but is is still an issue. Depending on your research question 32 channels could be good enough and considerably faster.
Customer support is fast but brief with Biosemi, and a lot of times I have solved things based on forum discussions rather than direct support, I am still more satisfied with support from Biosemi compared to EGI. Biosemi is more to the point and
technical, whereas EGI has a slow and somewhat bureaucratic support.
Signal quality should be better with Biosemi active electrodes compared to EGI, but I have actually not tested this thoroughly. When I have looked at amplitudes of MMN responses the effects have been quite similar between EGI and Biosemi. I was
surprised by this but it could be a larger difference in paradigms with fewer events.
Best wishes!
/Petter Kallioinen, EEG technician at linguistics dept, Stockholm University
|