30th Annual International IEEE EMBS Conference
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, August 20-24, 2008
Extraction of SSVEP Signals of a Capacitive EEG Helmet for Human
Machine Interface
Martin Oehler, Peter Neumann, Matthias Becker, Gabriel Curio, and Meinhard Schilling
Abstract— The use of capacitive electrodes for measuring
EEG eliminates the preparation procedure known from clas-
sical noninvasive EEG measurements. The insulated interface
to the brain signals in combination with steady-state visual
evoked potentials (SSVEP) enables a zero prep human machine
interface triggered by brain signals. This paper presents a 28-
channel EEG helmet system based on our capacitive electrodes
measuring and analyzing SSVEPs even through scalp hair.
Correlation analysis is employed to extract the stimulation
frequency of the EEG signal. The system is characterized
corresponding to the available detection time with different
subjects. As demonstration of the use of capacitive electrodes
for SSVEP measurements, preliminary online Brain-Computer
Interface (BCI) results of the system are presented. Detection
times lie about a factor of 3 higher than in galvanic EEG
SSVEP measurements, but are low enough to establish a proper
communication channel for Human Machine Interface (HMI).
I. INTRODUCTION
Noninvasive measurement of the electroencephalogram
(EEG) by galvanic contact via Ag/AgCl electrodes is the
standard measurement procedure in neuro-medicine. This
provides an access to sub-µV brain signals for diagnostics
and neuroscience. One application of this noninvasive EEG is
the use in the field of Brain-Computer-Interfacing. The BCI
provides a new human communication interface to computers
and machines by interpreting brain signals to deduce control
commands for the computer. This is interesting for handi-
capped people to control, e.g., a prosthesis or a wheelchair
and for normal people as an alternative Human Machine
Interface or for gaming purposes [1], [2], [3].
Capacitive electrodes are an alternative way to interface
the noninvasive EEG, avoiding the electrochemical contact
between the skin and the metal of the Ag/AgCl electrode
via electrolyte gel by using an insulator between electrode
and skin. The biosignal is measured by capacitive coupling
between body and electrode. These capacitive electrodes
have been already evaluated for EEG application [4], [5].
Also dry electrodes have been tested for BCI applications
[6]. With capacitive electrodes the preparation procedure
for measuring the EEG is reduced dramatically, especially
for a high number of channels. Such systems increase the
convenience for the user because no application of electrolyte
gel is needed. Here we integrate capacitive electrodes in a
This work was supported by grants of the Bundesministerium fr Bildung
und Forschung (BMBF), FKZ 01IBE01A/B
M. Oehler, P. Neumann, M. Becker and M. Schilling are with
the Institute of Electrical Measurement and Fundamental Electri-
cal Engineering, TU Braunschweig, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany.
m.oehler@tu-bs.de
G. Curio is with the Department of Neurology, Charité University
Medicine Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
978-1-4244-1815-2/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE.
Authorized licensed use limited to: IEEE Xplore. Downloaded on December 22, 2008 at 12:14 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
helmet based design. This provides a direct access to EEG
signals even through scalp hair.
Visual stimulation of the brain causes visual evoked po-
tentials (VEPs), which can be measured in the region of
the visual cortex [7]. If the stimulation repetition frequency
increases above 6 Hz, the VEPs come to a steady state,
called steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEP). These
SSVEP can easily be recorded with the EEG and are suitable
for a communication interface in a BCI application. Several
SSVEP-BCI systems have been demonstrated by now [8],
[9], [10]. Stimulation is often done by LED or flickering
areas on a PC screen as separated areas or checkerboards.
The signal processing is generally done by power spectral
density analysis or correlation analysis [11].
II. SENSORS & SYSTEM
A. Sensor
The capacitive coupling between the body and our sensor
is based on a metallic electrode plate insulated from the skin
by a thin plastic layer. This electrode plate is connected to
an impedance converter in the signal processing unit (SPU)
on top of the electrode plate. This unit also contains a
combined amplifier and filter circuit (Fig. 1). The electrode-
SPU package is shielded from the environment by a metallic
case to prevent the influence of external electric noise. In
addition the electrode itself is shielded by an internal active
guard circuit surrounded by shielding layers, effectively
shielding static charges.
Fig. 1. Capacitive electrode with signal processing unit (SPU)
The diameter of the electrode plate is 26 mm with a total
sensor height of 15 mm. The SPU is based on a LMC6082
operational amplifier from National Semiconductor, which is
used for impedance conversion, preamplification (factor 2)
and high pass filtering (200 mHz, 2nd-order Butterworth).
This circuit provides an extremely high input impedance
of above 1015 Ω. The complete electronics are included in
the sensor. The power supply of the electrodes is ±5 V.
4495
 √
This sensor has√ a input noise of around 2µV/ Hz at 10
Hz and 70nV/ Hz at 1 kHz. A more detailed sensor de-
scription in an ECG (electrocardiogram) application context
was published elsewhere [12]. Sensor noise is influenced
by the coupling quality between the sensor and the body.
To optimize this sensor coupling, the electrodes are flexibly
mounted in the helmet device to ensure a mechanical contact
to the head.
B. Helmet System
In our system 28 of these capacitive sensors are included in
a modified motorcycle helmet (Fig. 2). Each sensor is spring Fig. 3. System overview including helmet, headbox and signal processing
based flexibly mounted, so the sensors can adapt to the head PC
size in well defined ranges. It is not possible to match all
head sizes with one system, our system has a range around
the helmet sizes M-XL. The sensor positions cover the 10-20 15 Hz were used, the alpha region is not excluded from the
system for EEG electrodes, with additional channels in the stimuli frequencies [13]. The software generates a composite
central and occipital cortex region. Because of the sensor size trigger signal with both frequencies embedded. This trigger
and the adaption to different head sizes, in this publication signal is connected to the headbox to synchronize it with the
the channel names, where the electrode was applied, only EEG data. The recorded trigger signal is used by the signal
indicates the region corresponding to the 10-20 system. processing software. The checkerboards are synchronized
by the PC hardware timer to ensure time stability of the
signal during long time measurements. The stimulus software
communicates via User Datagram Protocol (UDP) with the
signal processing tool to synchronize the data acquisition and
the online processing with the checkerboard stimulus.

Fig. 2. Helmet with capacitive electrodes, Headbox amplifier

Fig. 3 displays a system overview including the helmet and

the PC. The sensors are connected to a headbox, providing
the battery power supply for the sensors and containing
27 bipolar channels of AD8221 instrumentation amplifiers
from Analog Devices. The sensor signals are differentially
amplified against one selectable reference channel via the
reference input. Additionally, the subject is grounded via a
simple galvanic electrode to reduce power line noise. After
amplification and anti-alias filtering, the signals are converted
by 24-bit Analog-Digital-Converters included in the headbox.
The digital data signals are send via a fiber channel and a
fiber-to-USB converter to a PC. Signal processing is done
on the PC including the data acquisition with the headbox
ADCs. The maximum sample frequency is 10 kHz, in this
application a sample frequency of 1 kHz was used.
III. STIMULATION
The stimulation is done by software on the same PC,
where the signal processing is accomplished. The stimulus
display shows two checkerboard areas (Fig. 4). The frequen-
cies can be adjusted independently by the user in a range of 1
to 20 Hz. In these experiments, frequencies between 10 and
Fig. 4. Stimulation checkerboards
The training procedure contains two 60 sec blocks. The
subject has to focus the right checkerboard for the first
60 sec and the left checkerboard for the second block.
These training procedures are used to determine the threshold
values for the frequency detection. Fig. 5 shows a SSVEP
with a flickering frequency of 13 Hz and the first harmonic
frequency at 26 Hz (marked with arrows). This first harmonic
was not observable at all subjects, so signal processing only
uses the main stimulus peak.
IV. SIGNAL PROCESSING
For the signal processing, first the occipital electrodes
(O1, O2 Oz) were analyzed. Channel FCz was used as
reference because it best covers the region between Fz and
FCz of 10-20 nomenclature for different head sizes. In our
actual helmet design, the Fz position is too close to nasion
for smaller head sizes. After windowing the data with a

4496

Authorized licensed use limited to: IEEE Xplore. Downloaded on December 22, 2008 at 12:14 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 6 3 sec 4 sec 5 sec

5 3 3 3

bandpower
Amplitude (µV) 4
2 2 2

3
1 1 1
2
0 0 0
off on off on off on
1

6 sec 7 sec 8 sec

0
10 15 20 25 30
Frequency (Hz)
3 3 3

bandpower
Fig. 5. Spectrum of SSVEP measurement at 13 Hz 2 2 2

1 1 1
Kaiser window, the stimulus frequencies are extracted from
the trigger signal. These stimulus frequencies are needed 0
off on
0
off on
0
off on
to calculate the bandpower in the corresponding frequency
range. The EEG signal and the composite trigger channel are
cross correlated (signal x, trigger y): Fig. 6. Boxplots of training data for different FFT window length

1 X
N
Φxy (k) = xn yn−k (1)
N n=0 tween 11 and 15 Hz chosen for best response. The accuracy
was calculated with different window length for the FFT. The
A fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the cross-correlated accuracy increases with the window length, but depending on
signal is used for bandpower calculation in the region of the subject, the accuracy is highly different and the needed
the stimuli frequencies. During training, this bandpower is FFT length for a proper detection differs.
used to calculate the threshold level for SSVEP detection by
the mean bandpower of stimulated and unstimulated training
1
sequences.
The 60 second data sets were split in short blocks (3-8 sec)
0.8
to calculate the bandpower. This calculation was done every
peak detection accuracy

second with the selected block size for the FFT. Depending
0.6
on this block size, in the 60s data set between 52 (8 sec)
and 57 (3 sec) data blocks have to be analyzed. Fig. 6 shows 0.4
this training results as boxplots for one frequency (12 Hz) subject 1 (12 Hz)
subject 2 (11 Hz)
of a training (60s unstimulated = off, 60s stimulated = on) 0.2 subject 3 (13 Hz)
depending on the size of the data block analyzed by the subject 4 (15 Hz)

cross-correlated FFT. The thick horizontal line in the middle 0

of the boxplot figure shows the median of the data, the box
is limited vertically by the lower and upper quartile. The
rest of the data lies between the dashed lines within 1.5
of the interquartile range except of outliers, displayed as
crosses outside the box. The non overlapping notches of the
boxes (on/off) show significant different medians even at 3s
window length at the 5% significance level.
The median of the data is used to calculate the distance
between the bandpower of stimulated and unstimulated cases.
According to this distance the best electrode for the subject
and for the threshold for the online BCI measurement is se-
lected (half distance from unstimulated bandpower). During
the online BCI measurement, the user gets a feedback of the
detected checkerboard frequency by a red rectangle on the
corresponding side of the PC display.
V. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Fig. 7 shows the results of analyzed training sessions of
four male subjects with different stimulation frequencies be-
3 4 5 6 7 8
window length (s)
Fig. 7. Peak detection accuracy versus window length for different subjects
The total time needed to extract the SSVEP frequency is
about a factor of 3-4 the time needed for a standard EEG [6],
[9]. With a time window of 6s and a peak accuracy of 95%
of subject 1 the corresponding bit-rate for the two symbols
during training (right, left) is 7.1 bits/min. For the online
experiment three symbols were used (right, left, no focus)
which increases the peak bit-rate to 12.5 bits/min [14]. Fig.
8 shows the online BCI measurement with subject 1, the
stimulation frequency was chosen to 12 Hz (right) and 11
Hz (left). The dashed horizontal lines display the threshold
level from training analysis, the FFT window length was 8s.
During the measurements, user commands, showing which
checkerboard has to be focused, were displayed on the
screen. In the figure these commands were represented by
the letters R (right), L (left) and X (no focus, subject should

4497

Authorized licensed use limited to: IEEE Xplore. Downloaded on December 22, 2008 at 12:14 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
look above the screen). The whole measurement took 320
seconds, every command was 32 seconds long. The results
of the online signal processing were displayed as feedback
on the screen.
right checkerboard frequency (12 Hz)
4
X R L R L X
3 the case of the helmet design to an easy-to-use system for
bandpower
2 different applications of human computer interfacing. A short
1
0
0 32 64 96 128 160 192
left checkerboard frequency (11 Hz)
6
X R L R L X
bandpower
4
2
0 fruitful cooperation during the development of the system.
0 32 64 96 128 160 192
time (s)
Fig. 8. Bandpower versus time for online BCI measurement for two
different frequencies at right and left checkerboard.
The separation, especially for the 12 Hz frequency, was
highly accurate. For the 11 Hz frequency the analyzed
bandpower is more fluctuating during the focusing. The delay
of the measured signals corresponds to the signal results from
the reaction time of the subject. The threshold calculated
by the training data is suitable in the first case to separate
stimulated and unstimulated data. In the second case (11
Hz) the fluctuation in the unstimulated areas generated false
positive results, therefore for this subject the 11 Hz is not
the ideal frequency for a proper separation.
Our results are based on a quite simple approach for signal
processing of the data, only using the best occipital channel
and the trigger signal. Our further studies will focus on
the implementation of a multi channel analysis, based on
correlation in the first step and on Independent Component
Analysis (ICA) in the second step, to extract the SSVEP
signal and to suppress noise in a proper way. This should lead
to a shorter detection time. Presently the detection speed of
the system limits the overall gain of time caused by zero
preparation. Faster systems based on Ag/AgCl electrodes
can compensate the much larger amount of time for subject
preparation after a defined measurement time because of a
higher detection rate. Nevertheless the lack of electrolyte gel
makes our system much more convenient for the user. The
current system with 28 channels realizes a high flexibility
with respect to the used channels and analyzed brain area.
For SSVEP measurements the system will be optimized with
a higher electrode density in the occipital cortex region, and
a more flexible attachment of the electrodes to better fit the
system on different head sizes. The sensor noise is limited
by the fact that a zero preparation system must be able to
measure through scalp hair, so the sensor has to handle this
weak coupling setup.
Authorized licensed use limited to: IEEE Xplore. Downloaded on December 22, 2008 at 12:14 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
VI. CONCLUSION
Capacitive electrodes are suitable for measuring EEG.
The integration in a helmet system gives a flexible tool for
different applications based on brain signal measurements.
In this paper, we could show the ability of our sensors to
detect µV SSVEP signals exemplarily shown for an online
R R L L BCI environment. The lack of extensive preparation leads in
training sequence is sufficient for a proper online detection.
Future work will focus on optimizing the helmet design and
224 256 288 320 fastening the detection time during online measurement. Also
the adaption to different subjects can be optimized.
R R L L
VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank to Prof. K.-R. Müller
and Dr. B. Blankertz from Fraunhofer FIRST.IDA Berlin for
224 256 288 320
R EFERENCES
[1] J.R. Wolpaw, N. Birbaumer, D.J. McFarland, G. Pfurtscheller and T.M.
Vaughan, ”Brain-Computer Interfaces for communication and control”,
Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 113, 2002, pp. 767-791.
[2] B. Blankertz, G. Dornhege, M. Krauledat, K.-R. Müller, V. Kunzmann,
F. Losch, G. Curio, ”The Berlin brain-computer interface: EEG-based
communication without subject training”, IEEE Trans. Rehab. Eng.,
vol. 14, 2005, pp. 147-152.
[3] F. Popescu, S. Fazli, Y. Badower, B. Blankertz, K.-R. Müller, ”Single
trial classification of motor imagination using 6 dry EEG electrodes”,
PLOS ONE, 7 (e637), 2007, pp. 1-5
[4] C.J. Harland, T.D. Clark and R.J. Prance, ”Remote detection of hu-
man electroencephalograms using ultrahigh input impedance electric
potential sensors”, Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 81, 2002, pp. 3284-3286.
[5] L.J. Trejo, K.R. Wheeler, C.C. Jorgensen, R. Rosipal, S.T. Clanton,
B. Matthews, A.D. Hibbs, R. Matthews and M Krupka, ”Multimodal
Neuroelectric Interface Development”, IEEE Trans. Rehab. Eng., vol.
11, 2003, pp. 199-203.
[6] G. Dornhege, J. Millan, T. Hinterberger, D. McFarland, K.-R. Müller
(eds.), ”Toward Brain Computer Interfacing”, MIT Press, 2007
[7] J.V. Odom, M. Bach, C. Barber, M Brigell, M.F. Marmor, A.P.
Tormene, G.E. Holder and Vaegan, ”Visual evoked potential standard”,
Documenta Ophthalmologica, vol. 108, 2004, pp. 115-123.
[8] E.C. Lalor, S.P. Kelly, C. Finucane, R. Burke, R. Smith, R.B. Reilly
and G McDarby, ”Steady-State VEP-Based Brain-Computer Interface
Control in an Immersive 3D Gaming Environment”, J. Appl. Sign.
Proc., vol. 19, 2005, pp. 3156-3164.
[9] M. Cheng, X. Gao, S. Gao and D. Xu, ”Design and Implementation of
a Brain Computer Interface With High Transfer Rates”, IEEE Trans.
Biomed. Eng., vol. 49, 2002, pp. 1181-1186.
[10] G.R. Mueller-Putz, R. Scherer, C. Brauneis and G. Pfurtscheller,
”Steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP)-based communication:
impact of harmonic frequency components”, J. Neural Eng., vol. 2,
2005, pp. 123-130.
[11] Z. Lin, C. Zhang, W. Wu and X. Gao, ”Frequency Recognition Based
on Canonical Correlation Analysis for SSVEP-Based BCIs”,IEEE
Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 53, 2006, pp. 2610-2614.
[12] M. Oehler, V. Ling, K. Mehlhorn and M. Schilling, ”A multichannel
portable ECG system with capacitive sensors”, Physiol. Meas., vol.
29, 2008, pp. 783-793.
[13] S.P. Kelly, E.C. Lalor, R.B. Reilly and J.J. Foxe, ”Visual Spatial
Attention Tracking Using High-Density SSVEP Data for Independent
Brain-Computer Communication”, IEEE Trans. Rehab. Eng., vol. 13,
2005, pp. 172-178.
[14] J.R. Wolpaw, H. Ramoser, D.J. McFarland, and G. Pfurtscheller,
”EEG-based communication: improved accuracy by response verifi-
cation”, IEEE Trans. Rehab. Eng., vol. 6, no. 3, 1998, pp. 326-333.
4498