[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[AUDITORY] AW: [AUDITORY] Auditory EEG Baseline Test



Dear all,

 

maybe our non-hairy location electrode grid/patch might be an interesting solution, also for children. To simplify EEG data collection and improve spatial coverage compared to pure ear-EEG:

 

https://www.idmt.fraunhofer.de/en/hsa/research_fields/mobile_neurotechnologies.html

 

Scanlon, J. E. M., Küppers, D., Büürma, A., & Winneke, A. H. (2025). Mind the road: attention related neuromarkers during automated and manual simulated driving captured with a new mobile EEG sensor system. Frontiers in neuroergonomics6, 1542379.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroergonomics/articles/10.3389/fnrgo.2025.1542379/full

 

da Silva Souto, C. F., Pätzold, W., Wolf, K. I., Paul, M., Matthiesen, I., Bleichner, M. G., & Debener, S. (2021). Flex-printed ear-EEG sensors for adequate sleep staging at home. Frontiers in digital health3, 688122.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/digital-health/articles/10.3389/fdgth.2021.688122/full

 

Please feel free to contact us, either me or due to upcoming holidays my colleague Axel Winneke (@Winneke, Axel),

best,

Insa

 

 

Von: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Im Auftrag von Prof. Efthymios Papatzikis
Gesendet: Dienstag, 1. Juli 2025 11:25
An: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [AUDITORY] Auditory EEG Baseline Test

 

Hi Malcom and colleagues, 

 

Thank you for opening this discussion about ear-EEG devices.   

 

Have you perhaps encountered any system that can be potentially adapted to children and infants for auditory research? (i.e., due to smaller, differentiated anatomically ears - perhaps ways also to deal with spatial precision that is more messy in infants than in adults?). 

 

Best, 

Efthymios

 



On 30 Jun 2025, at 13:11, Alejandro Valdes <000003fb0a786fb9-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

Hi Malcolm,

 

We've put together a validation toolkit for ear-EEG devices trying to help with this issue of evaluating the limits of the devices, you can access it here (https://osf.io/2dxs4/). One component of the toolkit is a series of EEG paradigms that run on psychopy. The detailed publication is here (https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/24/4/1226). ASSR and Alpha Block would be the simplest to figure out whether you are getting anything useful or not.

 

Kind regards

Alejandro

 

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 at 07:47, Dr. Stefan Strahl <stef@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello Malcolm,

One idea could be to perform an ABR amplitude growth function as
commonly used in ENT clinics, see for example [1]. That would not
involve a test of the behavioural feedback part of your setup, but
verify the EEG recording signal chain. And it has the advantage that you
also gather a good characterization of the auditory system of the
participants which might prove useful in the analysis (individual
threshold, slope, latencies).

Greetings from a sunny Europe,
Stefan

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879729623000534

Am 2025-06-29 05:45, schrieb Malcolm Slaney:
> What is a good test we can do to verify that we have a working ear-EEG
> setup with new EEG equipment?  Is there a standard test we can run
> before each subject to insure we are getting good data?
>
> An ASSR test, a MMN test?  Something short, reliable, and easy to
> quantify that we have good data.  We are going to be playing with
> several different kinds of EEG equipment at the Telluride Neuromorphic
> Workshop this week, and I’d love to have a go-no-go test before we
> collect more complicated experiments (like attention decoding).
>
> Is there a standard?  What do people recommend?
>
> Thanks.
>
> — Malcolm