moabb.datasets.BNCI2020_001#
- class moabb.datasets.BNCI2020_001(subjects=None, sessions=None)[source]#
BNCI 2020-001 Reach-and-Grasp Electrode Comparison dataset.
Dataset summary
#Subj
15
#Chan
varies (11-64)
#Classes
3
#Trials / class
80
Trials length
5 s
Freq
256 Hz
#Sessions
3
#Runs
4
Total_trials
7200
Participants
Population: healthy
Handedness: right-handed
Equipment
Amplifier: g.tec USBamp/g.tec Ladybird
Electrodes: Gel-based active electrodes
Montage: 5% grid system
Reference: right earlobe
Preprocessing
Data state: raw
Bandpass filter: 0.3-60 Hz
Steps: zero-phase 4th order Butterworth bandpass filter (0.3-60 Hz), extended infomax ICA for eye artifact removal, artifact rejection by amplitude threshold (>125 µV), artifact rejection by abnormal joint probability (4 SD threshold), artifact rejection by abnormal kurtosis (4 SD threshold)
Re-reference: CAR
Notes: Preprocessing applied during analysis, not to raw data. For gel-based and water-based recordings, extended infomax ICA algorithm was applied on all available EEG and EOG channels. ICA was not applied to dry-electrode recordings due to unfavorable number of channels (n=11).
Data Access
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00849
Repository: BNCI Horizon 2020
Experimental Protocol
Paradigm: imagery
Task type: reach-and-grasp
Tasks: reach-and-grasp toward jar (palmar grasp), reach-and-grasp toward spoon (lateral grasp)
Feedback: visual (screen showing number of completed grasps)
Stimulus: physical objects (jar, spoon)
Found an issue with this dataset?
If you encounter any problems with this dataset (missing files, incorrect metadata, loading errors, etc.), please let us know!
Dataset from [1].
Dataset Description
This dataset contains EEG data from 45 subjects (15 per electrode type) performing natural reach-and-grasp movements with different electrode systems. Three electrode types were compared:
Gel-based electrodes (g.tec g.USBamp system): 58 EEG + 6 EOG channels
Water-based electrodes (BitBrain EEG-Versatile): 32 EEG + 6 EOG channels
Dry electrodes (BitBrain EEG-Hero): 11 EEG channels (no EOG)
The study investigates the feasibility of decoding natural reach-and-grasp movements from EEG signals recorded with different electrode technologies, including mobile systems suitable for real-world applications.
Participants
45 healthy able-bodied subjects (15 per electrode type)
All subjects performed the same experimental protocol
Each subject used only one electrode type
Location: Graz University of Technology, Austria (in collaboration with BitBrain, Spain)
Recording Details
Sampling rate: 256 Hz (all systems)
Reference: Earlobe (right for gel, left for water/dry)
Ground: AFz (gel/water), left earlobe (dry)
Filters: 0.3-100 Hz bandpass (3rd-4th order Butterworth)
Experimental Procedure
Self-paced reaching and grasping actions toward objects on a table
Two grasp types: palmar grasp (empty jar) and lateral grasp (spoon in jar)
Rest condition: Quiet sitting with fixation
80 trials per grasp type distributed across 4 runs
Window of interest: [-2, 3] seconds relative to movement onset
Event Codes
palmar_grasp: Movement onset for palmar grasp (reaching to empty jar)
lateral_grasp: Movement onset for lateral grasp (reaching to jar with spoon)
rest: Onset of rest period
Electrode Types
Subjects are grouped by electrode type (15 per type). The subject index maps to:
1-15: Gel-based electrode recording
16-30: Water-based electrode recording
31-45: Dry electrode recording
Classification Results (from original paper)
Grand average peak accuracy on unseen test data:
Gel-based: 61.3% (8.6% STD)
Water-based: 62.3% (9.2% STD)
Dry electrodes: 56.4% (8.0% STD)
References
[1]Schwarz, A., Escolano, C., Montesano, L., & Muller-Putz, G. R. (2020). Analyzing and Decoding Natural Reach-and-Grasp Actions Using Gel, Water and Dry EEG Systems. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14, 849. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00849
Notes
Added in version 1.3.0.
This dataset is valuable for comparing electrode technologies in naturalistic movement paradigms. Data is available under CC BY 4.0 license.