Last Updated on February 28, 2024 by pg@petergamma.org
There are only two papers which validate OpenBCI for physiological scentific studies, and these are these two:
https://www.cell.com/heliyon/pdf/S2405-8440(21)01251-2.pdf
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/7/3763
We suppose that both of them are paid promotional papers, and both of them need to be confirmed by other researcher that they work.
But hardly any scientists use it, since they are not designed for it, research grade data analysis software is not connected to it, etc. OpenBCI Cyton is now avaiable for 200 USD on Aliexpress with 8 channels. This module has specifications which are similar to the specifations of a Biosemi Active 2 amplifier which cost 10 000 USD. But to make out of the OpenBCI Cyton a device for scientists which can compete with a Biosemi Active 2 takes a lot of time. Biosemi Active 2 have been used in many scientific papers. And any new device needs firts to proof it’s function.
If for instance Peter Gamma from www.petergamma.org want to build a new device for his physiological home lab, should he choose the OpenBCI Cyton? This is a 10 year old architecture. And who builts up a new device on a 10 year old architecture? A.J. Keller from Neurosity Crown once said, he works since 8 years on Neurosity Crown, which means that OpenBCI was 2 years old when he started. But now it is 8 years later. Therfore Peter Gamma from www.petergamma.org thinks that OpenBCI Cyton is in the year 2024 a good device for evaluation purposes, but not a good device to build a new device out of it. The architecture set’s a limitation to 16 channels, which newer devices which are based on TGAM modules, newer A/D converters and InfluxDB do not have.