<p>The <a href="https://peerj.com/articles/38/">Emotiv system</a> has been evaluated in a research setting. <a href="https://peerj.com/articles/38/">Badcock et al. (2013)</a> recorded EEG activity with the Emotiv EPOC and a more conventional laboratory system simultaneously, and found that both systems produced similar results for ERPs with a relatively high signal-to-noise ratio, but it was harder to detect less reliable signals with the EPOC than with the standard lab setup they used.</p>

<p>Reference:</p>

<p>Badcock, N. A., Mousikou, P., Mahajan, Y., de Lissa, P., Thie, J., &amp; McArthur, G. (2013). Validation of the Emotiv EPOC® EEG gaming system for measuring research quality auditory ERPs. <em>PeerJ, 1</em>, e38. <a href="https://peerj.com/articles/38/">fulltext</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-23T14:45:17.063Z
One issue that should be mentioned when comparing laboratory to non-laboratory settings is that of cap placement.  For EEG systems to generalize across sessions and across individuals, it's important to consistently place the cap so that the electrodes are in contact with the same portion of the skull, as scalp-level topographies vary immensely.  This is typically harder to do with systems like Emotiv's EPOC because they have no Cz reference electrode.  Care must also be taken to control for occular components.
Louis Thibault
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-21T20:30:26.377Z
2014-10-21T20:30:26.377Z
Josh
<p>I'm looking to do some research about flow and optimal experience with EEG. 
I don't have access to a lab and I was wondering if the new devices that are available to the public (i.e. Melon, Muse, iFocust,...) are any good to conduct research? Is it all just a marketing gimmick?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-21T18:07:11.447Z
Flow is tough to experiment upon; I would suggest finding any EEG/flow work you can, looking at what differences they find between flow and not-flow states, and then investigating these devices with a view to those differences.  It's possible that they'll be able to see these changes, but it's very possible that they won't.
Krysta
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-23T14:42:00.963Z
To add to @Krysta's comment, the issue is also that "Flow" has a very loose definition, which makes predicting electrophysiological effects difficult.  Please see:  http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/7655/2926
Louis Thibault
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-16T19:48:35.203Z
possible duplicate of [Is it possible to detect the mental flow state with EEG?](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/7647/is-it-possible-to-detect-the-mental-flow-state-with-eeg)
Seanny123
<eeg><positive-psychology><devices>
Are recent affordable EEG devices any good?
curious
# Are recent affordable EEG devices any good?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-10-21)

I'm looking to do some research about flow and optimal experience with EEG.
I don't have access to a lab and I was wondering if the new devices that are available to the public (i.e. Melon, Muse, iFocust,...) are any good to conduct research? Is it all just a marketing gimmick?

**Tags:** eeg, positive-psychology, devices

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Flow is tough to experiment upon; I would suggest finding any EEG/flow work you can, looking at what differences they find between flow and not-flow states, and then investigating these devices with a view to those differences.  It's possible that they'll be able to see these changes, but it's very possible that they won't.  
> **username_2**: To add to @username_1's comment, the issue is also that "Flow" has a very loose definition, which makes predicting electrophysiological effects difficult.  Please see:  http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/7655/2926  
> **username_3**: possible duplicate of [Is it possible to detect the mental flow state with EEG?](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/7647/is-it-possible-to-detect-the-mental-flow-state-with-eeg)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2014-10-21. Score: 6

The [Emotiv system](https://peerj.com/articles/38/) has been evaluated in a research setting. [Badcock et al. (2013)](https://peerj.com/articles/38/) recorded EEG activity with the Emotiv EPOC and a more conventional laboratory system simultaneously, and found that both systems produced similar results for ERPs with a relatively high signal-to-noise ratio, but it was harder to detect less reliable signals with the EPOC than with the standard lab setup they used.

Reference:

Badcock, N. A., Mousikou, P., Mahajan, Y., de Lissa, P., Thie, J., & McArthur, G. (2013). Validation of the Emotiv EPOC® EEG gaming system for measuring research quality auditory ERPs. *PeerJ, 1*, e38. [fulltext](https://peerj.com/articles/38/)

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: One issue that should be mentioned when comparing laboratory to non-laboratory settings is that of cap placement.  For EEG systems to generalize across sessions and across individuals, it's important to consistently place the cap so that the electrodes are in contact with the same portion of the skull, as scalp-level topographies vary immensely.  This is typically harder to do with systems like Emotiv's EPOC because they have no Cz reference electrode.  Care must also be taken to control for occular components.  

---

