Search

Ear-EEG allows to record brain activity in every-day life, for example to study natural behaviour or unhindered social interactions. Compared to conventional scalp-EEG, ear-EEG uses fewer electrodes and covers only a small part of the head. Consequently, ear-EEG will be less sensitive to some cortical sources. Here, we perform realistic electromagnetic simulations to compare cEEGrid ear-EEG with 128-channel cap-EEG. We compute the sensitivity of ear-EEG for different cortical sources, and quantify the expected signal loss of ear-EEG relative to cap-EEG. Our results show that ear-EEG is most sensitive to sources in the temporal cortex. Furthermore, we show how ear-EEG benefits from a multi-channel configuration (i.e. cEEGrid). The pipelines presented here can be adapted to any arrangement of electrodes and can therefore provide an estimate of sensitivity to cortical regions, thereby increasing the chance of successful experiments using ear-EEG. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10548-020-00793-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective. Ear-EEG (electroencephalography) allows to record brain activity using only a few electrodes located close to the ear. Ear-EEG is comfortable and easy to apply, facilitating beyond-the-lab EEG recordings in everyday life. With the unobtrusive setup, a person wearing it can blend in, allowing unhindered EEG recordings in social situations. However, compared to classical cap-EEG, only a small part of the head is covered with electrodes. Most scalp positions that are known from established EEG research are not covered by ear-EEG electrodes, making the comparison between the two approaches difficult and might hinder the transition from cap-based lab studies to ear-based beyond-the-lab studies. Approach. We here provide a reference data-set comparing ear-EEG and cap-EEG directly for four different auditory event-related potentials (ERPs): N100, MMN, P300 and N400. We show how the ERPs are reflected when using only electrodes around the ears. Main results. We find that significant condition differences for all ERP-components could be recorded using only ear-electrodes. The effect sizes were moderate to high on the single subject level. Morphology and temporal evolution of signals recorded from around-the-ear resemble highly those from standard scalp-EEG positions. We found a reduction in effect size (signal loss) for the ear-EEG electrodes compared to cap-EEG of 21%–44%. The amount of signal loss depended on the ERP-component; we observed the lowest percentage signal loss for the N400 and the highest percentage signal loss for the N100. Our analysis further shows that no single channel position around the ear is optimal for recording all ERP-components or all participants, speaking in favor of multi-channel ear-EEG solutions. Significance. Our study provides reference results for future studies employing ear-EEG.