4.6 Article

Low-Cost EEG Multi-Subject Recording Platform for the Assessment of Students' Attention and the Estimation of Academic Performance in Secondary School

期刊

SENSORS
卷 23, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s23239361

关键词

EEG; brain-computer interface (BCI); attention; academic performance; education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The level of student attention in class has a significant impact on their academic performance. A new platform based on EEG has been developed to objectively assess student attention and estimate their academic performance. The platform provides valuable feedback to teachers, enhancing the effectiveness of both face-to-face and online teaching and learning environments.
The level of student attention in class greatly affects their academic performance. Teachers typically rely on visual inspection to react to students' attention in time, but this subjective method leads to inconsistencies across classes. Online education exacerbates the issue as students can turn off cameras and microphones to keep their own privacy. To address this, we present a novel, low-cost EEG-based platform for assessing students' attention and estimating their academic performance. In a study involving 34 secondary school students (aged 14 to 16), participants watched an academic video and answered evaluation questions while their EEG activity was recorded using a commercial headset. The results demonstrate a significant correlation (0.53, p-value = 0.003) between the power spectral density (PSD) of the EEG beta band (12-30 Hz) and students' academic performance. Additionally, there was a notable difference in PSD-beta between high and low academic performers. These findings encourage the use of PSD-beta for the immediate and objective assessment of both the student attention and the subsequent academic performance. The platform offers valuable and objective feedback to teachers, enhancing the effectiveness of both face-to-face and online teaching and learning environments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据