This manuscript describes an approach to measure neural activity of humans while solving spatially focused engineering problems. The electroencephalogram methodology helps interpret beta brain wave measurements in terms of neural efficiency, with the aim of ultimately enabling comparisons of task performance both between problem types and between participants.
Spatial intelligence is often linked to success in engineering education and engineering professions. The use of electroencephalography enables comparative calculation of individuals' neural efficiency as they perform successive tasks requiring spatial ability to derive solutions. Neural efficiency here is defined as having less beta activation, and therefore expending fewer neural resources, to perform a task in comparison to other groups or other tasks. For inter-task comparisons of tasks with similar durations, these measurements may enable a comparison of task type difficulty. For intra-participant and inter-participant comparisons, these measurements provide potential insight into the participant's level of spatial ability and different engineering problem solving tasks. Performance on the selected tasks can be analyzed and correlated with beta activities. This work presents a detailed research protocol studying the neural efficiency of students engaged in the solving of typical spatial ability and Statics problems. Students completed problems specific to the Mental Cutting Test (MCT), Purdue Spatial Visualization test of Rotations (PSVT:R), and Statics. While engaged in solving these problems, participants' brain waves were measured with EEG allowing data to be collected regarding alpha and beta brain wave activation and use. The work looks to correlate functional performance on pure spatial tasks with spatially intensive engineering tasks to identify the pathways to successful performance in engineering and the resulting improvements in engineering education that may follow.
Spatial ability is vital to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) fields and education and correlates with success in these areas1,2,3. Therefore, it is important to understand the development of how spatial ability impacts problem solving4. Spatial ability has been linked to interest5, performance6, success in engineering academics7 and success in engineering professionals8. However, there is not a lot of work indicating specific neural processes in solving problems typical to many spatial ability instruments, nor specific engineering content that is highly spatial.
This paper provides an introduction to methods used for data collection and analysis of spatial ability instrument scores combined with neural measurements. The intent of publishing with JoVE is to make these methods more accessible to a broader audience. General public hardware and software were utilized in this study. As a methods paper, full results/data sets are not reported, nor are multiple samples provided. All images were captured specifically for this publication. The methods detailed below were utilized in preparing a preliminary conference report9 based on data from eight college sophomore-aged participants, three of whom were female.
Many existing instruments are used to indicate levels of spatial ability inherent to or learned by individuals. Two valid and reliable10,11 instruments that are commonly used are the Mental Cutting Test (MCT)12 and the Purdue Spatial Visualization test of Rotations (PSVT:R)13. While originally occupationally designed14 these instruments test different stages of spatial visualization development described by Piagetian theory10,15. The use of these instruments creates a need to understand the underlying physiological cognitive phenomena existing when individuals work through these problems. For this reason, this study aims to showcase methods utilizing empirical physiological data that may ultimately improve the analysis and understanding of spatial thought, verify existing metrics testing capabilities, and increase the applicability of spatial assessments to more complex problems typical to engineering education. Many of these problems can be encountered in engineering Statics.
Statics is a foundational mechanics course delivered to most engineering students (e.g., Biological, Mechanical, Civil, Environmental, Aerospace Engineering)16,17. It is one of the first extensive problem solving experiences that students are given in core engineering content18. Statics involves the study of the interaction of forces on a rigid body that is at rest or moving at a constant velocity. Unfortunately Statics has high dropout, withdrawal, and failure rates (14% as seen in the investigated University) and this may be related to traditional lecture and curriculum delivery models that omit key avenues of support such as spatially enhanced approaches to education. For example, spatially enhanced approaches in Statics can target the visualization of how forces interact outside of typical analytical analysis and reinforce students' procedural knowledge with grounded conceptualization. The effectiveness of such interventions needs to be investigated from a cognitive neuroscientific perspective.
Electroencephalography (EEG) presents a unique and mobile method of measuring students' brainwave activity. Individuals performing tasks who elicit beta activation are generally very engaged with the task specifics and are attentive to what they are doing19,20. As task demands increase, the amplitude of the beta wave increases, as does the size of the cortical area the bandwidth frequencies occupy. The more neurons that fire within the beta frequency range (alpha: 8 – 12 Hz, beta: 12 – 24Hz) can be defined as greater beta power. Relatedly, as one becomes more experienced in a task, the amplitude of beta waves decreases, generating less beta power. This is part of the neural efficiency hypothesis21-28, in which greater task experience when performing a task is related to a decrease in frequency power. Although EEG has previously been used in the study of spatial abilities (often for mental rotation and spatial navigation tasks) — and applicable data have been identified in the alpha, beta, and theta bands27-33 — alpha and beta bands were observed for this study, and beta was selected for further representative analysis in this paper and in the preliminary conference report9. The procedures defined below thus focus on beta band analysis, but an investigation into all three bands, depending on the logged data, is recommended in the future.
The neural efficiency hypothesis has been tested on various tasks, including chess, visuospatial memory, balancing, and resting. All have indicated task experience as a factor in decreased frequency power when performing familiar tasks. One particular study25 has presented evidence that, although the intelligence of a person (as measured by IQ) can help the individual acquire the skills to perform a task, experience with the task outweighs intelligence in its contribution to neural efficiency. In other words, the more experienced an individual is, the more neurally efficient he or she becomes.
Existing neural efficiency studies involving spatial ability have primarily focused on spatial rotation, and different problem sets have been used to compare different populations (e.g., male/female)27-28. EEG studies of spatial ability tasks have also provided insight by comparing performance to other task types (e.g., verbal tasks)27,29,30. The methods discussed in this paper focus on and compare problems from the MCT, PSVT:R, as well as static equilibrium tasks, which are related to spatial ability but are not limited to spatial rotation and navigation. Other spatial tasks may be used in place of the ones given as examples in this manuscript. In this way, additional insight may be obtained in the future regarding different populations (e.g., male/female or expert/novice) to ultimately help improve engineering educational practices.
In an effort to investigate spatial ability and engineering aptitude, we have developed a protocol utilizing EEG measurements to identify the beta wave activations of low performing to high performing participants during a limited battery of specific spatial and engineering tasks. In this case, the term high performer is related to the performance of the participant, and is not reflective of the amount of time spent in the field by the learner, as all participants were at approximately the same point in their education. Additionally, the problem set involved is quite specific and basic; thus the terms "expert" or "high performing" herein must not be viewed in the sense of an expert, professionally employed engineer, but representing only high performance in this narrow slice of engineering mechanics curriculum and spatial ability instruments. The neural measurements can also be used to identify any gross trends for which task types may recruit more cognitive resources than others, with possible interpretation regarding levels of difficulty. This information may potentially provide insight into future assessment and intervention with regard to spatial ability. Other future insight may be derived by considering more specific regions of the brain, which was not possible in this study due to the limited number of channels available in the EEG hardware used.
Ethical Statement Regarding Use of Human Participants
Procedures involved in this work have been approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Utah State University for the study of human subjects. It is recommended that any similar work should also be approved by the relevant IRB. Participants are allowed to stop or withdraw from the study at any time during the experiment.
1. Selection of Participants
2. Preparation of Instruments
3. Preparation of Study Participants and Session Commencement
4. Software Execution within the Session
5. Conclusion of the Session
6. Data Analysis
In this section, the preceding steps are illustrated with sample figures as described below. Full data summaries with statistical tests are not provided, as the objective of this paper is to focus on methods. Examples of potential PSVT:R, MCT, and Spatial problems are given in Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3, respectively.
The EEG cap will collect brain activation via electrical potentials for each given channel, which can be viewed in parallel as shown in Figure 7. As mentioned previously, certain artifacts within the data need to be manually removed, while others can be removed via ICA. At times a faulty channel can be identified. Such artifacts are visible in Figure 7. In the analysis software, the large, non-repetitive artifacts can be manually marked in sequence and then removed by clicking the "REJECT" button (as in step 6.3.3.2.1). All figures with images of EEG data analysis are from the analysis software tool listed in the Table of Materials.
Following the ICA, the analysis software maps the data in two ways: 1) A scalp-mapped representation of activation, and 2) A 2-D Continuous Data plot of activation arrayed by Trials and Time. An example of acceptable data can be observed in Figure 5. An example of rejected scalp mapped data indicating activity not associated with the brain for three cases can be seen in Figure 4. 2D Continuous Data plots for those same rejected three cases can be seen in Figure 6. The streaking observed in the first two plots warrants consideration for removal. The streaking in the third plot may be considered borderline — 2-D Continuous Data plots of this quality may be considered for inclusion, and the researcher must consider the balance between including spurious signals and discarding valuable data. Streaks longer than 0.5 seconds are considered grounds for rejection. For more insight, refer to the EEGLAB website (http://sccn.ucsd.edu/eeglab/).
Once all confounding data have been rejected — either through manual rejection while looking at the brainwave plots or after ICA — and the data have been chunked in time for the appropriate activity type, the absolute power calculations can be made for each frequency band and each activity type via the MATLAB script (based on the analysis software functions) given in the Supplemental Code File. The summary data then generated by the function are shown in the tables below. Table 1 contains the data from the Rest time periods — which are used as the baseline for the efficiency calculations. Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4 contain the absolute power data for the PSVT:R, MCT, and Statics problems, respectively. By dividing by the cell value for the corresponding channel and frequency band in the Rest table, the relative absolute power ratios are shown in Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7 for PSVT:R, MCT, and Statics problems, respectively.
Ultimately, the average value across all channels is taken for the beta frequency band for each activity type, and the results are shown in Table 8. This type of data can be used to identify ROIs for future research. From these data for the participant in question, we see that the relative absolute power appears lower for the PSVT:R than for the MCT. Decisive conclusions regarding this statement, though, remain dependent on a larger sample size to establish possible statistical significance. The relative absolute power for Statics tasks may be compared to the value from other participants, and estimates of high performer vs low performer cognitive exertion may be identified which could be correlated with functional scores on the Statics problems for validation.
Although this is specifically a methods paper, and presents examples of data from only one participant, the preliminary report's statistical analysis used a Levene's test to assess normality, followed by Friedman's test comparing group x task x EEG channel. Finally, a follow-up Wilcoxon test was performed on significant Friedman effects and interactions. The comparison between high and low performers showed significantly higher beta activation levels for low performers than for high performers (For PSVT:R, F3: χ2(1,6) = 5.33, p < .03; T8: χ2(1,6) = 4.08, p < .05; FC6: χ2(1,6) = 4.08, p < .05; F8: χ2(1,6) = 4.08, p < .05; AF4: χ2(1,6) = 5.33, p<.03. For MCT, F3: χ2(1,6) = 5.33, p < .03; T8: χ2(1,6) = 5.33, p < .03; FC6: χ2(1,6) = 5.33, p < .03; AF4: χ2(1,6) = 4.08, p < .05. For Statics, FC6: χ2(1,6) = 4.08, p < .05). 9
Figure 1: PSVT:R Example Problem. Part A demonstrates a single sample PSVT:R Problem as seen by participants. (Source: Guay (1976)) The correct answer is C. Part B provides a visual explanation of the solution. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: MCT Example Problem. Part A demonstrates a single sample MCT Problem as seen by participants. The correct answer is D. Part B provides a visual explanation of the solution. (Source: CEEB (1939)) Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3: Statics Example Problem. Illustrates a single example Statics problem given to participants. This problem is for in-plane (i.e., 2-D) equilibrium given three forces and a common connection structure. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 4: Examples of Non-Brain Scalp-Mapped Activity. Three examples of post-ICA scalp-mapped data are shown from an individual, 23-year-old, male participant. Full-scalp activation, activation above a single eye/temple, and activation focused on eyes and temples are indicative of corporal activity, not brain activity, as shown after ICA in IC2, IC3, and IC4, respectively. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 5: Acceptable Post-ICA Data Images. Illustration of acceptable scalp map and 2-D Continuous Data plot after ICA for a sample case, Independent Component 13 (IC13), from an individual, 23-year-old, male participant. Activation appears to be centered on a region of the brain in the scalp-mapped view, and no large streaks are visible in the Continuous data plot. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 6: 2-D Continuous Data Plots Matching Scalp-Mapped Images. Three examples of post-ICA continuous-data plots are shown from an individual, 23-year-old, male participant. Thick bands or streaks in the 2-D Continuous Data plots from ICA indicate discontinuities not indicative of normal brain function in IC2, IC3, IC4 — particularly in IC2 and IC3 plots. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 7: Brainwave Data with Artifacts. Screenshot of an artifact (channel F7) manually marked for rejection with a sample time range from an individual, 23-year-old, male participant. Note the event across multiple channels between 132 and 133: Similar events are repeated multiple times (approximately the same shape and size at regular intervals) — and thus are assumed to represent a non-brain biological function (e.g., blinking) — and can be removed via Independent Component Analysis (ICA). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Supplemental Code File: MATLAB Script and Alteration. Displays the scripts (spectopo.m and absolutepower.m) for the transformation based on the microvolt measurement and the time — calculated for each frequency band (Delta, Theta, Alpha, Beta, and Gamma) — to obtain the absolute power at each frequency22. The code changes required for proper functionality in pop_chanedit.m are also included. Please click here to download this file.
REST | AF3 | F7 | F3 | FC5 | T7 | P7 | O1 | O2 | P8 | T8 | FC6 | FC4 | FC8 | AF4 | |
delta | 2.92885 | 4.08477 | 3.54998 | 2.34592 | 2.70998 | 2.32691 | 2.68544 | 4.27085 | 2.98234 | 8.86292 | 6.23237 | 4.78013 | 10.8036 | 3.25063 | |
theta | 0.97171 | 1.37529 | 1.31051 | 0.80067 | 0.86828 | 0.72737 | 0.89545 | 1.47262 | 0.9612 | 2.62535 | 1.81392 | 1.50252 | 3.17255 | 1.07803 | |
alpha | 1.05352 | 1.3154 | 1.1847 | 0.65468 | 0.80063 | 0.67154 | 1.02715 | 2.07336 | 1.08513 | 2.66165 | 1.57996 | 1.34778 | 3.03508 | 1.16919 | |
beta | 0.43161 | 0.90384 | 0.50791 | 0.53479 | 0.50098 | 0.38674 | 0.38319 | 0.58092 | 0.31785 | 1.01047 | 0.56527 | 0.49346 | 0.90616 | 0.48072 | |
gamma | 0.5045 | 1.34183 | 0.62215 | 0.84909 | 0.70052 | 0.51585 | 0.43051 | 0.67612 | 0.34162 | 1.03946 | 0.64008 | 0.5726 | 0.91932 | 0.51616 |
Table 1: Rest Absolute Power. Contains the absolute power values for the baseline Rest time periods. Values are shown for each EEG cap channel and each neural frequency band. Please click here to download this table as an Excel spreadsheet.
PSVT:R | AF3 | F7 | F3 | FC5 | T7 | P7 | O1 | O2 | P8 | T8 | FC6 | FC4 | FC8 | AF4 | |
delta | 3.20159 | 4.9235 | 4.45167 | 2.34879 | 2.42221 | 2.02463 | 2.94513 | 5.43045 | 4.42694 | 12.7964 | 11.31 | 6.487 | 21.8189 | 4.09331 | |
theta | 0.96945 | 1.59045 | 1.37746 | 1.03259 | 0.84002 | 0.66437 | 1.07593 | 1.74327 | 1.17321 | 3.7199 | 2.85166 | 1.53374 | 5.03852 | 1.18174 | |
alpha | 0.85227 | 1.13582 | 1.02927 | 0.58288 | 0.67936 | 0.58545 | 0.74962 | 1.66418 | 0.99799 | 2.75755 | 2.02905 | 1.36223 | 3.80233 | 1.0266 | |
beta | 0.35494 | 0.678 | 0.40734 | 0.36971 | 0.37595 | 0.30512 | 0.31952 | 0.50253 | 0.28369 | 0.75791 | 0.71554 | 0.42837 | 1.01529 | 0.34922 | |
gamma | 0.30691 | 0.74519 | 0.41486 | 0.43652 | 0.39229 | 0.30623 | 0.30822 | 0.4174 | 0.22447 | 0.66889 | 0.70126 | 0.36895 | 0.90685 | 0.30268 |
Table 2: PSVT:R Absolute Power. Contains the absolute power values for the time periods when the participant was solving PSVT:R problems. Values are shown for each EEG cap channel and each neural frequency band. Please click here to download this table as an Excel spreadsheet.
MCT | AF3 | F7 | F3 | FC5 | T7 | P7 | O1 | O2 | P8 | T8 | FC6 | FC4 | FC8 | AF4 | |
delta | 4.25246 | 7.54329 | 5.08043 | 5.52389 | 3.73567 | 3.26572 | 3.76397 | 5.8437 | 4.62085 | 18.7991 | 16.4444 | 6.24405 | 28.1184 | 4.59798 | |
theta | 1.19953 | 1.84997 | 1.70135 | 1.27424 | 1.30572 | 1.08925 | 1.09528 | 1.91699 | 1.34909 | 4.19652 | 3.73398 | 2.04338 | 6.21749 | 1.33753 | |
alpha | 1.18154 | 1.41989 | 1.23333 | 0.76868 | 0.8051 | 0.6844 | 1.02368 | 2.53414 | 1.29356 | 2.94347 | 2.26038 | 1.4973 | 3.94919 | 1.1579 | |
beta | 0.44047 | 0.89503 | 0.54 | 0.51125 | 0.46215 | 0.36589 | 0.3884 | 0.61918 | 0.35962 | 1.03223 | 0.89744 | 0.54226 | 1.35175 | 0.47197 | |
gamma | 0.41897 | 1.05133 | 0.51015 | 0.64259 | 0.51855 | 0.39244 | 0.41827 | 0.52564 | 0.29925 | 0.87269 | 0.84818 | 0.4996 | 1.08765 | 0.41331 |
Table 3: MCT Absolute Power. Contains the absolute power values for the time periods when the participant was solving MCT problems. Values are shown for each EEG cap channel and each neural frequency band. Please click here to download this table as an Excel spreadsheet.
Statics | AF3 | F7 | F3 | FC5 | T7 | P7 | O1 | O2 | P8 | T8 | FC6 | FC4 | FC8 | AF4 | |
delta | 7.21032 | 12.8557 | 8.50834 | 7.09116 | 5.75386 | 4.80761 | 6.79589 | 9.11056 | 7.39437 | 23.7659 | 18.5893 | 11.7132 | 32.0165 | 8.38173 | |
theta | 1.64049 | 3.16334 | 1.98263 | 1.70548 | 1.52057 | 1.25686 | 1.61864 | 2.35557 | 1.6244 | 4.85163 | 3.79464 | 2.53764 | 6.50266 | 1.809 | |
alpha | 0.86505 | 1.37518 | 1.00568 | 0.72506 | 0.76361 | 0.6491 | 0.95616 | 1.63483 | 0.9386 | 2.56892 | 1.67092 | 1.18895 | 3.13664 | 0.98499 | |
beta | 0.35583 | 0.55288 | 0.41326 | 0.30866 | 0.34607 | 0.29362 | 0.357 | 0.59991 | 0.34927 | 1.04345 | 0.66066 | 0.44385 | 1.21395 | 0.42598 | |
gamma | 0.24587 | 0.43744 | 0.31831 | 0.23404 | 0.25428 | 0.2218 | 0.26349 | 0.39275 | 0.22939 | 0.7927 | 0.507 | 0.29891 | 0.94462 | 0.3172 |
Table 4: Statics Absolute Power. Contains the absolute power values for the time periods when the participant was solving Statics problems. Values are shown for each EEG cap channel and each neural frequency band. Please click here to download this table as an Excel spreadsheet.
PSVT:R % | AF3 | F7 | F3 | FC5 | T7 | P7 | O1 | O2 | P8 | T8 | FC6 | FC4 | FC8 | AF4 | average | |
delta | 1.09312 | 1.20533 | 1.254 | 1.00122 | 0.89381 | 0.8701 | 1.0967 | 1.27152 | 1.48439 | 1.44382 | 1.81472 | 1.35708 | 2.01959 | 1.25924 | ||
theta | 0.99766 | 1.15645 | 1.05108 | 1.28965 | 0.96746 | 0.91339 | 1.20155 | 1.18379 | 1.22056 | 1.41692 | 1.5721 | 1.02078 | 1.58816 | 1.09621 | ||
alpha | 0.80897 | 0.86348 | 0.86881 | 0.89032 | 0.84853 | 0.8718 | 0.7298 | 0.80265 | 0.9197 | 1.03603 | 1.28424 | 1.01072 | 1.2528 | 0.87804 | ||
beta | 0.82237 | 0.75013 | 0.80199 | 0.69131 | 0.75043 | 0.78897 | 0.83383 | 0.86506 | 0.89252 | 0.75005 | 1.26584 | 0.86809 | 1.12043 | 0.72645 | 85.2% | |
gamma | 0.60836 | 0.55535 | 0.66682 | 0.5141 | 0.56 | 0.59365 | 0.71594 | 0.61734 | 0.65707 | 0.6435 | 1.09557 | 0.64435 | 0.98644 | 0.5864 |
Table 5: PSVT:R Relative Absolute Power. Contains the relative absolute power values — that is, the ratio compared to the Rest baseline — for the time periods when the participant was solving PSVT:R problems. Values are shown for each EEG cap channel and each neural frequency band. Please click here to download this table as an Excel spreadsheet.
MCT % | AF3 | F7 | F3 | FC5 | T7 | P7 | O1 | O2 | P8 | T8 | FC6 | FC4 | FC8 | AF4 | average | |
delta | 1.45192 | 1.84669 | 1.43111 | 2.35468 | 1.37849 | 1.40346 | 1.40162 | 1.36828 | 1.54941 | 2.12109 | 2.63855 | 1.30625 | 2.60268 | 1.41449 | ||
theta | 1.23445 | 1.34515 | 1.29823 | 1.59146 | 1.5038 | 1.49751 | 1.22317 | 1.30176 | 1.40354 | 1.59846 | 2.05851 | 1.35997 | 1.95978 | 1.24072 | ||
alpha | 1.12151 | 1.07944 | 1.04106 | 1.17413 | 1.00557 | 1.01915 | 0.99661 | 1.22223 | 1.19207 | 1.10588 | 1.43065 | 1.11093 | 1.30118 | 0.99034 | ||
beta | 1.02052 | 0.99025 | 1.06317 | 0.95599 | 0.9225 | 0.9461 | 1.01359 | 1.06585 | 1.13138 | 1.02154 | 1.58762 | 1.09891 | 1.49174 | 0.9818 | 109.2% | |
gamma | 0.83046 | 0.78351 | 0.81998 | 0.7568 | 0.74023 | 0.76077 | 0.97157 | 0.77744 | 0.87596 | 0.83956 | 1.32511 | 0.87252 | 1.1831 | 0.80073 |
Table 6: MCT Relative Absolute Power. Contains the relative absolute power values — that is, the ratio compared to the Rest baseline — for the time periods when the participant was solving MCT problems. Values are shown for each EEG cap channel and each neural frequency band. Please click here to download this table as an Excel spreadsheet.
Statics % | AF3 | F7 | F3 | FC5 | T7 | P7 | O1 | O2 | P8 | T8 | FC6 | FC4 | FC8 | AF4 | average | |
delta | 2.46182 | 3.14723 | 2.39673 | 3.02277 | 2.12321 | 2.06609 | 2.53064 | 2.1332 | 2.47939 | 2.6815 | 2.9827 | 2.45039 | 2.96349 | 2.57849 | ||
theta | 1.68824 | 2.30012 | 1.51286 | 2.13005 | 1.75125 | 1.72794 | 1.80763 | 1.59958 | 1.68997 | 1.84799 | 2.09195 | 1.68893 | 2.04966 | 1.67807 | ||
alpha | 0.82111 | 1.04545 | 0.84889 | 1.1075 | 0.95375 | 0.96658 | 0.93089 | 0.78849 | 0.86496 | 0.96516 | 1.05757 | 0.88215 | 1.03347 | 0.84245 | ||
beta | 0.82441 | 0.6117 | 0.81364 | 0.57716 | 0.69079 | 0.75922 | 0.93164 | 1.03269 | 1.09885 | 1.03264 | 1.16874 | 0.89947 | 1.33966 | 0.88613 | 90.5% | |
gamma | 0.48736 | 0.326 | 0.51162 | 0.27564 | 0.36299 | 0.42997 | 0.61205 | 0.58088 | 0.67146 | 0.76261 | 0.79208 | 0.52202 | 1.02753 | 0.61453 |
Table 7: Statics Relative Absolute Power. Contains the relative absolute power values — that is, the ratio compared to the Rest baseline — for the time periods when the participant was solving Statics problems. Values are shown for each EEG cap channel and each neural frequency band. Please click here to download this table as an Excel spreadsheet.
average | |
PSVT:R % | 85.2% |
MCT % | 109.2% |
Statics % | 90.5% |
Table 8: Averaged Relative Absolute Power. Contains the relative absolute power values — that is, the ratio compared to the Rest baseline — averaged across all EEG cap channels for the time periods when the participant was solving PSVT:R, MCT, and Statics problems. Percentages are shown for the beta frequency band only. Please click here to download this table as an Excel spreadsheet.
The protocol discusses the application of electroencephalography to measure brain activity for participants working problems from two typical spatial ability instruments and highly spatial engineering Statics problems. The methods detailed here may ultimately be able to help understand the neural efficiency of high and low performers engaged in working these problems. It is vital to understand any differences in neural efficiencies of engineering students working on the MCT and PSVT:R, as these tests are often used to assess spatial ability. Comparing them to each other allows us to better assess their applicability to success in engineering and their position in foundational engineering curricula.
The protocol establishes procedures for research on neural efficiencies associated with spatial cognition tasks. It is important that reliable and valid instruments are used to assess spatial abilities connected to engineering content. It is also important that engineering problems target the representative engineering content for a specific course. EEG measurements offer a distinct non-intrusive capability to triangulate cognitive component data from students engaged in spatial aspects of engineering problem solving. Proper time stamping should be used for such data collection, ensuring triangulation with video-archived events. IRB protocols should be stringently followed, ensuring the anonymity of participant data and analysis.
Most troubleshooting concerns occur while collecting EEG data as detailed below, and the majority of those are handled before data are recorded. Corrections for poor impedance and noise are best handled during setup. Following the EEG headset manufacturer's instructions is critical, and in our experience the indications by the manufacturer's software can direct users to check specific electrodes. Typically the connection between the felt pad and the participant's head needs to be dampened more, or the connection between each electrode and the headset may need to be checked. If some connectivity is visible, but the quality is poor, using the syringe to re-dampen the felt is often sufficient, and at times the headset needs to be adjusted physically to ensure solid contact with the scalp. In a couple of cases, we had to ask participants to rinse their hair in a sink before we were able to obtain a good connection. When the electrode appeared to not be transmitting data, it was often remedied by removing the electrode and then reinserting it. At times, the plastic case for the electrode may crack, in which case it will need to be replaced.
Other troubleshooting may occur during data analysis, and is discussed in the protocol. Data preprocessing involves the filtering and removal of artifacts. Often the data analysis software supports manual rejection as well as scripts that can be run during preprocessing and processing of the data.
Modifications were made to a script within the analysis software. Those changes are documented in the supplemental code file. Modifications to the protocol may also be made. A concurrent protocol has been used in which verbal answers are required during the study. This will introduce more artifacts into the EEG data, but will provide more insight into the participant's functional knowledge during the tests. An alternative has also been used in which the participant participates in a video-recorded interview with the researcher after the session.
Other recommended potential modifications include utilizing different spatial ability tests14, different engineering questions17, or other educational assessments. Different brain activity metrics, possible via EEG and other instrumentation, could also shed light on the difficulty, or other characteristics, of skill assessments.
We recognize that there are limitations with the technique defined in this document. The constructs of spatial ability (rotation and cutting planed surface) measured by the PSVT:R and MCT are only two of many potential constructs measurable with other spatial metrics. In addition, different spatially intensive tasks (i.e., different types of problems or different courses and coursework) may also be assessed. Research into neural efficiency should of course also be conducted on a broader scope than just fundamental engineering courses such as Statics. For example, it should be investigated within the many STEM fields acknowledged in the literature to depend on spatial reasoning3. Also, neural efficiency studies should not be limited to skills directly linked only to spatial ability21-28. Even within the research involved in brainwave measurement, the practice of averaging power measurements over the duration of a task prohibits investigation into other correlations that may occur within the patterns of brain activity. EEG measurements, due to their temporal responsivity, are not limited to neural efficiency studies. And EEG instrumentation is itself limited by the depth of brainwave activity it can detect, particularly when compared to the higher spatial resolution of functional near-infrared spectroscopy or functional magnetic resonance imaging, although its temporal responsivity remains among the best36.
Ultimately, the potential of using physiological measurements to provide insight to educational theory and practice appears immense37,38. The technical approach and goals of this protocol are different than the biofeedback approach using EEG in educational/training studies39, but all are worth consideration as insight is gained in phenomena such as spatial ability development and engineering skill development. This approach of using EEG to examine neural efficiency between spatial tasks inherent within specific spatial ability instruments defines another method of segregating spatial ability tests. This exemplifies a new application of a neuroscientific approach for investigating spatial ability tests, as well as opening a neuroscientific approach towards the investigation of existing educational theory. Finding methods for verification and validation is part of engineering culture. Within this new application, physiological brainwave testing can open a new realm of understanding and refining educational theory. Indeed, if viewed as a potential avenue of validation, a novel and new generation of engineering educational research may arise.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
The authors would like to acknowledge Christopher Green, Bradley Robinson, and Maria Manuela Valladares, for helping with data collection. Funding for EEG equipment was provided by Utah State University's Office of Research and Graduate Studies Equipment Grant to Kerry Jordan's Multisensory Cognition Lab. Benjamin Call is supported by a Presidential Doctoral Research Fellowship attained from Utah State University's School of Graduate Studies for his work with Dr. Wade Goodridge.
Emotiv EPOC Model 1.0 | Emotiv | Model: Emotiv Premium | "High resolution, multi-channel, portable EEG system." |
Emotiv Control Panel (software) | Emotiv | Used for data collection. | |
Emotiv Testbench (software) | Emotiv | Used for data collection. | |
Virtual Serial Port Emulator – VSPE (software) | ETERLOGIC.COM | Used COM10 in data collection. Available as a free download, depending on the operating system. | |
E-Prime 2.0 (software) | Psychology Software Tools | Used for data collection (presentation of problems to participants and collection of markers for different phases). | |
EEGLab 13.4.4b (software) | Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience (SCCN) | Used for data analysis. "An open source environment for electrophysiological signal processing". SCCN is a Center of the Institute for Neural Computation, the University of California San Diego. | |
MATLAB R2014b | The Mathworks, Inc. | Used to run EEGLab | |
Microsoft Excel 2013 | Microsoft | Used to assemble and compare tabulated results from EEGLab & MATLAB, to create tables | |
Camcorder with built in Mic | Canon | CNVHFR50 | Used to record sessions |
Syringe Kit (5cc syringe & 2 16g blunted needles) | Electro-Cap Intnl. Inc. | E7 | For keeping the EEG cap's felts damp. |
Nuprep EEG Skin Prep Gel | Weaver and Company | 10-30 | For cleaning the mastoid process. |
Sanitizer | Purell | S-12808 | For sanitizing hands |