Volume index - Journal index - Article index - Map ---- Back

Comunicar Journal 76: Neurotechnology in the classroom: Current research and future potential (Vol. 31 - 2023)

Potentialities and limitations of the use of EEG devices in educational contexts

https://doi.org/10.3916/C76-2023-04

Alfonso García-Monge

Henar Rodríguez-Navarro

José-María Marbán

Abstract

Wireless electroencephalography (EEG) devices allow for recordings in contexts outside the laboratory. However, many details must be considered for their use. In this research, using a case study with a group of third-grade primary school students, we aim to show some of the potentialities and limitations of research with these devices in educational settings. Several balances are apparent in the development of these experiences: between the interests and possibilities of the research teams and the educational communities; between the distortion of life in the classrooms and the opportunities for collaboration between academia and practice; and between the budget and the ease of preparing the equipment and the usefulness of the collected data. Among their potentialities is the knowledge that they allow access to different cognitive and emotional processes, and the learning opportunity represented by the links between researchers and educational communities. Life in the classrooms is interrupted by these types of experiences, but this can be a cost that facilitates more integrated future developments that benefit teaching and learning processes.

Keywords

Neuroeducation, electroencephalography, neurophysiological measurements in education, primary education, elementary school, educational contex, case study

PDF file in Spanish

PDF file in English

References

Akalin-Acar, Z., & Makeig, S. (2013). Effects of forward model errors on EEG source localization. Brain topography, 26(3), 378-396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10548-012-0274-6

Antonenko, P., Paas, F., Grabner, R., & Van-Gog, T. (2010). Using electroencephalography to measure cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(4), 425-438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9130-y

Basar, E., Basar-Eroglu, C., Karakas, S., & Schürmann, M. (1999). Oscillatory brain theory: A new trend in neuroscience. IEEE engineering in medicine and biology magazine: the quarterly magazine of the Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society, 18(3), 56-66. https://doi.org/10.1109/51.765190

Bevilacqua, D., Davidesco, I., Wan, L., Chaloner, K., Rowland, J., Ding, M., Poeppel, D., & Dikker, S. (2019). Brain-to-brain synchrony and learning outcomes vary by student-teacher dynamics: evidence from a real-world classroom electroencephalography study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31(3), 401-11. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01274

Browarska, N., Kawala-Sterniuk, A., Zygarlicki, J., Podpora, M., Pelc, M., Martinek, R., & Gorzelanczyk, E.J. (2021). Comparison of smoothing filters' influence on quality of data recorded with the emotiv EPOC Flex brain-computer interface headset during audio stimulation. Brain sciences, 11(1), 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11010098

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032

Coan, J.A., & Allen, J.J. (2004). Frontal EEG asymmetry as a moderator and mediator of emotion. Biological Psychology, 67(1-2), 7-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.03.002

Craik, A., He, Y., & Contreras-Vidal, J.J. (2019). Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: A review. Journal of Neural Engineering, 16(3), 031001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5

Dikker, S., Haegens, S., Bevilacqua, D., Davidesco, I., Wan, L., Kaggen, L., McClintock, J., Chaloner, K., Ding, M., West, T., & Poeppel, D. (2020). Morning brain: Real-world neural evidence that high school class times matter. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 15(11), 1193-1202. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa142

Dikker, S., Wan, L., Davidesco, I., Kaggen, L., Oostrik, M., McClintock, J., Rowland, J., Michalareas, G., Van Bavel, J.J., Ding, M., & Poeppel, D. (2017). Brain-to-brain synchrony tracks real-world dynamic group interactions in the classroom. Current Biology, 27(9), 1375-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.002

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2006). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine Transaction.

Grammer, J.K., Xu, K., & Lenartowicz, A. (2021). Effects of context on the neural correlates of attention in a college classroom. NPJ science of learning, 6(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00094-8

Hajare, R., & Kadam, S. (2021). Comparative study analysis of practical EEG sensors in medical diagnoses. Global Transitions Proceedings, 2(2), 467-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gltp.2021.08.009

Howard-Jones, P.A., Varma, S., Ansari, D., Butterworth, B., De Smedt, B., Goswami, U., Laurillard, D., & Thomas, M.S.C. (2016). The principles and practices of educational neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016). Psychological Review, 123(5), 620-627. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000036

Janssen, T.W.P., Grammer, J.K., Bleichner, M.G., Bulgarelli, C., Davidesco, I., Dikker, S., Jasi?ska, K.K., Siugzdaite, R., Vassena, E., Vatakis, A., Zion-Golumbic, E., & van Atteveldt, N. (2021). Opportunities and Limitations of Mobile Neuroimaging Technologies in Educational Neuroscience. Mind, Brain and Education, 15(4), 354-370. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12302

Katzir, T., & Paré-Blagoev, J. (2006). Applying cognitive neuroscience research to education: The case of literacy. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4101_6

Khedher, A.B., Jraidi, I., & Frasson, C. (2019). Tracking students’ mental engagement using EEG signals during an interaction with a virtual learning environment. Journal of Intelligent Learning Systems and Applications, 11(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.4236/jilsa.2019.111001

Krigolson, O.E., Williams, C.C., Norton, A., Hassall, C.D., & Colino, F.L. (2017). Choosing MUSE: Validation of a low-cost, portable EEG system for ERP research. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 11, 109. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00109

Lau-Zhu, A., Lau, M.P.H., & McLoughlin, G. (2019). Mobile EEG in research on neurodevelopmental disorders: Opportunities and challenges. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 36, 100635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2019.100635

Liu, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Developing sustaining authentic partnership between MBE researchers and local schools. Mind, Brain, and Education, 15(2), 153-162. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12280

Mason L. (2009). Bridging neuroscience and education: A two-way path is possible. Cortex, 45(4), 548-549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2008.06.003

Matusz, P.J., Dikker, S., Huth, A.G., & Perrodin, C. (2019). Are we ready for real-world neuroscience? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31(3), 327-338. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_e_01276

McMahan, T., Parberry, I., & Parsons, T.D. (2015). Evaluating player task engagement and arousal using electroencephalography. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 2303-2310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.376

Pope, A.T., Bogart, E.H., & Bartolome, D.S. (1995). Biocybernetic system evaluates indices of operator engagement in automated task. Biological Psychology, 40(1-2), 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0511(95)05116-3

Rose, N., & Abi-Rached, J. (2014). Governing through the brain: Neuropolitics, neuroscience and subjectivity. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology, 32(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.3167/ca.2014.320102

Shad, E.H.T., Molinas, M., & Ytterdal, T. (2020). Impedance and noise of passive and active dry EEG electrodes: a review. IEEE Sensors Journal, 20(24), 14565-14577. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2020.3012394

Shamay-Tsoory, S.G., & Mendelsohn, A. (2019). Real-life neuroscience: An ecological approach to brain and behavior research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(5), 841-859. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619856350

Shkedi, A. (2004). Second?order theoretical analysis: A method for constructing theoretical explanation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(5), 627-646. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839042000253630

Stake, R.E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. Guilford Publications. https://bit.ly/3J0mmNf

Vekety, B., Logemann, A., & Takacs, Z.K. (2022). Mindfulness practice with a brain-sensing device improved cognitive functioning of elementary school children: An exploratory pilot study. Brain Sciences, 12(1), 103. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12010103

Williams, N.S., McArthur, G.M., & Badcock, N.A. (2020a). 10 years of EPOC: A scoping review of Emotiv’s portable EEG device. BioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.14.202085

Williams, N.S., McArthur, G.M., de-Wit, B., Ibrahim, G., & Badcock, N.A. (2020b). A validation of Emotiv EPOC Flex saline for EEG and ERP research. PeerJ, 8, e9713. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9713

Williamson, B. (2018). Brain data: Scanning, scraping and sculpting the plastic learning brain through neurotechnology. Postdigital Science and Education, 1, 65-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0008-5

Xu, J., & Zhong, B. (2018). Review on portable EEG technology in educational research. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 340-349. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12314

Xu, K., Torgrimson, S.J., Torres, R., Lenartowicz, A., & Grammer, J.K. (2022). EEG data quality in real?world settings: Examining neural correlates of attention in school?aged children. Mind, Brain, and Education, 16(3), 221-227. https://doi.org.ponton.uva.es/10.1111/mbe.12314

Zerafa, R., Camilleri, T., Falzon, O., & Camilleri, K.P. (2018). A comparison of a broad range of EEG acquisition devices– is there any difference for SSVEP BCIs? Brain-Computer Interfaces, 5(4), 121-131 https://doi.org/10.1080/2326263X.2018.1550710