The effects of electrode placement upon EEG biofeedback training: the monopolar-bipolar controversy.

Roles of tradition, convenience, and noise or artifact rejection are discussed with regard to the monopolar versus bipolar electrode placement controversy in electroencephalography (EEG). Particular emphasis is placed on the relevance to biofeedback. The crucial interactions between the differential amplifier, brain waves, and monopolar/bipolar placements are discussed. Through logical analysis and empirical observation, it is demonstrated how the very nature of the EEG's differential amplifiers must destroy those elements of brain activity which are common to the recording electrodes. Controlled experiments further illustrate the critical importance of electrode placements. Various methods, including preferred electrode placements, are presented to help resolve recording problems that frequently arise. It is concluded that there are serious implications for researchers, EEG clinicians, biofeedback providers, and their clients in preferring one type of electrode placement technique over the other. EEG recording accuracy is affected by this choice.

[1]  D. Lindsley,et al.  Chapter 1 – The Electroencephalogram: Autonomous Electrical Activity in Man and Animals , 1974 .

[2]  Frank H. Duffy,et al.  Clinical Electroencephalography and Topographic Brain Mapping: Technology and Practice , 1989 .

[3]  M. Low Bioelectric recording techniques, part b: electroencephalography and human brain potentials: r.f. thompson and m.m. patterson (editors). (academic press, new york, 1974, 327 p., $ 17.50) , 1976 .

[4]  J. Kamiya,et al.  A simple on-line technique for removing eye movement artifacts from the EEG. , 1973, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[5]  B Hjorth,et al.  Principles for Transformation of Scalp EEG from Potential Field into Source Distribution , 1991, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[6]  R. Thatcher,et al.  Cortico-cortical associations and EEG coherence: a two-compartmental model. , 1986, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[7]  P L Nunez,et al.  The Spline‐Laplacian in Clinical Neurophysiology: A Method to Improve EEG Spatial Resolution , 1991, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[8]  R Elul The physiological interpretation of amplitude histograms of the EEG. , 1969, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[9]  R. Tarter,et al.  Expanding dimensions of consciousness , 1978 .

[10]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , 1963 .

[11]  S. Shor,et al.  Open Focus:The Attentional Foundation of Health and Well-being , 1990 .

[12]  D. Lindsley,et al.  Perceptual discrimination in monkeys: Retroactive visual masking ☆ , 1969 .

[13]  W. R. Goff Chapter 3 – Human Average Evoked Potentials: Procedures for Stimulating and Recording , 1974 .