Table 3.
Satisfaction ratings assessed with the extended QUEST 2.0 and user comments.
| Items | Healthy (Gel) | Healthy (Dry) | User 3 (Dry) | User 5 (Gel) | User comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXTENDED QUEST 2.0 (RATINGS FROM 1 TO 5) | |||||
| Dimensions | 4.4 | 4.5 | 3 | 3 | Healthy (Gel): “smaller is always possible,” “a bit too tight around the chin,” “adjustment to different head shapes could be improved,” “ear-clip annoying in the long run” | End user 5: “cap feels very tight after wearing it for some time” | Healthy (Dry): “noticeable from the corner of one's eyes,” “small pressure, otherwise hardly noticeable” |
| Weight | 4.7 | 4.3 | 4 | 4 | Healthy (Gel): “unusual feeling that one will probably get used to” | Healthy (Dry): “somewhat heavy,” “very pleasant, light,” “one feels the cap in the beginning, but forgets about it after a few minutes of wearing it,” “after some time the electrodes press, the amp gets too heavy and pulls backwards” |
| Adjustment | 4 | 4.4 | 2 | 3 | Healthy (Gel): “unfortunately adding gel necessary,” “signal wasn't very good in the beginning” | End user 5: “pretty easy to set up the electrode system and adjust the cap” | Healthy (Dry): “slightly time-comsuming (for long hair),” “easy adjustment to different head shapes, easier compared to other EEG systems,” “easy readjustment,” “expertise required,” “help of participant required,” “required several attempts” |
| Safety | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | |
| Comfort | 4.4 | 3.9 | 2 | 4 | Healthy (Gel): “cap could be annoying in the long run,” “the cap is somewhat constricting,” “very comfortable, but long usage is strenuous for the eyes,” “usefulness high, but cap very conspicuous in public,” “good for home use, but not in public, “partly uncomfortable due to cap” | End User 5: “sweating, below the cap—it could be more breathable” | Healthy (Dry): “electrodes press slightly, but almost like a head-massage :); pressure on chin [through strap],” “the felt-pressure increases over time,” “not comfortable in the beginning, but hardly noticeable in the end,” “electrodes painful after some time,” “one feels cramped,” “small pressure,” “like a helmet,” “eye-catching in public, therefore not completely perfect” |
| Ease of use | 4.4 | 4.5 | 2 | 2 | Healtyh (Gel): “one has to practice,” ”varying symbol size impedes recognition” | End user 5: “eye tracker better” | Healthy (Dry): “long time until command executed,” “one can easily make mistakes if concentration is not high enough,” “strenuous for eyes, otherwise easy to control,” “would be optimal in combination with text auto completion software” |
| Effectiveness | 4.5 | 4.3 | 2 | 2 | Healthy (Gel): “selections take long sometimes,” “several small mistakes that one can undo easily,“ “time consuming,” “works well, but takes a bit long” | Healthy (Dry): “from time to time (very rarely) errors occurred,” “one needs a lot of patience and practice,” “a matter of practice,” “might not work for complex web pages, if a lot of scrolling is required” |
| Prof. Services (information/intsructions) | 4.8 | 5 | 4 | 4 | |
| QUEST 2.0 total score | 4.5 | 4.5 | 2.8 | 3.3 | |
| Reliability | 4.5 | 4.5 | 2 | 5 | Healthy (Gel): “more reliable than expected,” “did not recognize everything,” “reacts often different” | Healthy (Dry): “selected wrong icons sometimes,” “if own movements are too strong, position of electrodes can shift,” “sometimes the software failed,” “took some time in the beginning” |
| Speed | 3.7 | 4.1 | 2 | 1 | Healthy (Gel): “partly very slow,” “would need a long time to write text—too slow,” “for text quicker selections desireable, e.g., auto-completion,” “takes longer than using mouse/keyboard” | End user 5: “pretty slow compared to eye tracker” | Healthy (Dry): “takes a bit long,” “for a healthy study participant it is slow, but for a patient it could be a success,” “could be quicker (2),” “selections take too long” |
| Learnability | 4.8 | 4.9 | 3 | 3 | Healthy (Gel): “big effort necessary” |
| Aesthetic design | 3.7 | 3.8 | 1 | 1 | Healthy (Gel): “All in all acceptable,” “not really pretty, but that is not important [cap],” “not very fashionable but functional with a futuristic design [cap],” “too big, chunky [amp],” “a brick [amp],” “an EEG cap will probably never look pretty,” “very basic, but works flawless [software]” | Healthy (Dry): “design could be less conspicuous (2),” “conspicuous, but ok,” “big, conspicuous,” “100% eye-catching, in public all eyes would be on it,” “caps never look well,” “functionality is more important,” “slightly too big [amp],” “very basic design [software]” |
| Added items total score | 4.2 | 4.3 | 2 | 2.5 | |
QUEST2.0 = Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology: 1 = not satisfied at all, 2 = not very satisfied, 3 = more or less satisfied, 4 = quite satisfied, 5 = very satisfied.