$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
A total of 65 male rugby players (20.9 ± 2.3 years old) were successfully enrolled in the first section of this study, with all players undergoing a baseline SSVEP assessment (Figure 1). Through the course of the rugby season, 12 participants sustained a potential concussive injury on the field of play and were re-evaluated with the SSVEP system for a post-injury assessment. The team physician evaluated these players using a clinical concussion evaluation protocol and diagnosed these 12 participants as concussed. All twelve were deemed recovered by the physician within the 12 day GRTP time period30. Following the physician's determination that the players were recovered, 8 players were available for an additional SSVEP; categorized as a recovery assessment. Twenty-two players who were not concussed were retested for the study reliability purposes over the course of the season. The remaining participants who were not retested were lost to follow-up. No adverse events following SSVEP stimulation were reported for the duration of the study. The reliability of the SSVEP system used on the rugby players was confirmed by a high intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) with a 95% confidence interval, equalling to 0.91 (0.79-0.96) for the retested non-injured players (n = 22) and 0.96 (0.74-0.99) for the retested recovered players33. Datasets in which a good contact quality were achieved were considered for this calculation. This is a result of a few occasions in which participants' hair or skin potential impacted the EEG systems' ability to obtain clean SSVEP (Figure 4).
In order to determine whether the SSVEP produced via this investigative system can be utilized as a biomarker for concussion, the SNR values of the processed results were grouped into baseline (control), concussed, and recovery assessments for comparison (Figure 1). Overall, the median SNR for all control players (n = 65) was 4.80 [IQR: 4.07-5.68], with the average processed EEG of the control group showing a clear 15 Hz peak signal in the respective frequency spectrum33. A similar response was seen when the average SSVEP values of a separate control group (n = 20; healthy general population) produced by the same visual stimulus but recorded with a different EEG system, were graphed as a power spectrum density (Figure 5). This median distribution and power spectrum density allowed for a clear control to be set for a SSVEP response of a non-injured (non-concussed) player to the investigative setup (Figure 2, Figure 3). The median SNR of all concussed players (n = 12) and the recovered players with available SSVEP assessments (n = 8), was 2.00 [IQR: 1.40-2.32] and 4.82 [IQR: 4.13-5.18], respectively33. The pilot study observed significant differences in median SNR values (+4.03; p < 0.0001) between the control (baselined) and concussed players. A concussion had a large effect on an SSVEP signal (Cohens, d = 4.03). Interestingly, the recovered group of players were seen to have a minute SNR variance (+0.02; p = 0.0495) just at significance (α < 0.05), with trivial effect compared to the control group (Cohens, d = 0.17)33. This indicates that following a full recovery, as per the GRTP guidelines30, SSVEP values are equivalent for a concussed and non-injured player. Further, the median SNR was seen to be significantly different (+2.80; p = 0.0002) between the concussed and recovered group of players, demonstrating that the recovery period has had a large effect on the concussed player's SSVEP signal (Cohens, d = 3.60)33.
A similar response in median SNR variance was seen when comparing only the players who underwent all three forms of testing (n = 8; baselines, concussed and, recovery). A significant change between baselines vs concussed (-2.34; p = 0.0001) and concussed vs recovery (-2.72; p = 0.0002) was observed, whereas minor variance was seen between baselines vs recovery (+ 0.28; p = 0.0495), with a trivial effect between these groups (Cohens d = 0.17). These findings were reinforced when taking the average SNR values of the players who underwent all three forms of testing. The average SNR of these players' baseline, concussed, and recovery readings were 4.45, 2.20, and 4.33, respectively. A significant difference was seen between baseline vs concussed (p = 0.0001) and concussed vs recovery groups (p = 0.0002). The variation in average SNR values between the recovery and baseline group was small, but just at significance (p = 0.0495). Overall, the response to the stimulus was lower in concussed players when compared to their baseline assessment. Following a monitored recovery period, these players were eventually able to generate a response equivalent to their initial (baseline) assessment33. This demonstrates that a sports-related concussion has an impact on an individual's ability to generate SSVEPs for a minimum period of 12 days. If an individual's SSVEP response was routinely measured in a similar fashion to this protocol (Figure 1): baseline, post-injury, recovery, a health practitioner could potentially utilize the SSVEPs as a biomarker for concussion.
The all-in-one portable SSVEP system (Figure 7A), was used on (n = 20) healthy control subjects from the general population, non-specified to the sport of rugby. Since this is an investigational device with a different electrode system (Figure 7B) and slightly varied stimuli from the initial SSVEP setup, the median and average SNR values were not valid for comparison (Table 1). Similarly, since participants did not engage in sports with a high occurrence of concussion, the SSVEP system was not assessed as a SSVEP marker for concussion. Instead, a test-retest reliability study was conducted to validate the system for future use in large-scale trials (Figure 6). The SSVEP system returned a high correlation of 0.81 (CI: 0.59-0.92), indicating the device is reliable at obtaining SSVEPs (Table 2). Additionally, the accuracy of the systems' EEG technology was validated through an agreement study against a traditional clinical-grade EEG system (Figure 7C), which returned a similar ICC value of 0.83 (CI: 0.63-0.93) (Table 2). The first repetition of testing (preliminary) resulted in 18/20 participants displaying an agreement across both systems for a binomial probability of 95%. For one participant, the devices did not agree due to the SSVEP system detecting a more prominent alpha rhythm than the desired 15 Hz signal response (Figure 8). For the other participant, no SSVEP was identified with the clinical EEG system (Figure 9). However, In the second repetition (primary), all 20 participants had an agreement across both systems for a binomial probability of 100%. The overall accuracy of the two systems to produce a SSVEP is illustrated in Figure 10, which depicts both systems having a prominent SNR solely at the stimulated frequency: 15 Hz. This validates the portable system as functionally equivalent to clinical grade devices that are used to record EEG signals. When taken in combination with the SSVEP system's portability and ease of use, it opens up a variety of applications for the capturing of research quality SSVEP outside of the clinical setting such as in a large-scale SRC case study.

Figure 1: Flowchart methodology of athlete participation in SRC-SSVEP study. The flowchart details screening for participant eligibility and group-allocation throughout the SRC-SSVEP study duration of amateur rugby union players. SRC; sports related concussion. SSVEP; steady state visual evoked potentials. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Visual stimulus component of portable SSVEP system. (A) LCD smartphone with video loaded and displayed, fitted within a cardboard VR frame. The participant is required to hold the VR frame flush against their face and nasal bridge ensuring both eyes are completely enclosed by the frame. (B) Illustration of the visual stimulus; video loop created of alternating white (top row) and black screens (bottom row) at a frequency of 15 Hz. Each screen contained two frames separated by a vertical dividing line aligned with the left and right eye field of view of the VR frame. Each frame contained a focal point in the form of a number at its center which alternated within a range of 1-9 at 5 s intervals. SSVEP; steady state visual evoked potentials. LCD; liquid crystal display. VR; virtual reality. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Wireless EEG component of portable SSVEP system. (A) A 14-channel EEG headset capable of transmitting data wirelessly to a nearby receiver attached to a computer. (B) A visual map of the 14 electrode positions with respect to the international 10-20 EEG system for electrode placement in human EEG studies. Two occipital electrodes (O1 and O2) were utilized as recording electrodes, while two parietal electrodes were utilized as the common-mode subtraction and ground (P3 and P4, respectively) in the SRC-SSVEP study. EEG; electroencephalography. SSVEP; steady state visual evoked potentials. SRC; sports related concussion. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Illustration of the importance of contact quality in SSVEP measurements. SSVEP responses of a single control (healthy general population) subject measured with the SSVEP system, with a set stimulus frequency of 15 Hz and a sampling rate of 250 Hz, when: (A) atypical saline solution is used on electrodes, (B) electrodes are not adequately worked through subject hair to contact the scalp, (C) electrodes are saturated with saline and worked through the hair. Saline is essential to ensure electrical connectivity between the patients' head and electrodes; without it, large-amplitude skin-potential artifacts are observed in a harmonic fashion. Hair acts as a resistor minimizing electrical connectivity between the patient's scalp and the electrodes and hence results in increased noise. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Average SSVEP response of 20 control subjects in EEG validation study. SSVEP responses of control (healthy general population) subjects (n = 20) measured with the SSVEP system, with a set stimulus frequency of 15 Hz and a sampling rate of 250 Hz. Individual SSVEP values were filtered between 5-40 Hz before being fast Fourier transformed and normalized. Average SSVEP of the population are illustrated as a power spectrum density, with the y-axis representing signal amplitude in microvolts (uV). SSVEP; steady state visual evoked potentials. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6: Flowchart methodology of EEG validation study between two systems. The flowchart details the methodology of validating a portable EEG system against an established EEG reference system: the SSVEP and clinical EEG systems, respectively. Control (healthy general population) participants are screened and randomly assigned a test order and two tests conducted on each system in a test-retest fashion. EEG; electroencephalography. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 7: Electrode overview for EEG validation study between two systems. (A) The improved portable SSVEP system. (B) The international standard 10-20 EEG modified combinatorial nomenclature system. (C) The established clinical EEG reference system. The SSVEP system measures EEG signals through its three occipital electrode channels (O1, O2, and Oz) while utilizing the two partial electrode channels (P1 and P2) as the reference and bias, respectively. The clinical EEG system allows for the measurement of EEG signals through its 40-channel amplifier, which can manually be positioned in the same O1, O2, Oz, P1, P2 arrangement as the SSVEP system for comparison. EEG; electroencephalography. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 8: Power spectrum density of a single control participants' (participant 09) SSVEP response as measured by two EEG systems. (A) The SSVEP system. (B) The clinical EEG system. Both measurements were obtained using the same visual stimulus (from the SSVEP system): a 15 Hz flicking stimulus of white LEDs in an enclosed case. Note how despite the prominent 15 Hz response seen in both systems, the absolute highest peak for the SSVEP system was at 10.5 Hz rather than at the stimulated 15 Hz. As per the criteria of the agreement study, in which the systems must detect the stimulated frequency as the peak (primary) amplitude, this constitutes as a failure. SSVEP; steady state visual evoked potentials. LED; light-emitting diodes. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 9: Power spectrum density of a single control (healthy general population) participants' (participant 19) SSVEP response as measured by two EEG systems. (A) The SSVEP system. (B) The clinical EEG system. Both measurements were obtained using the same visual stimulus (from the SSVEP system); a 15 Hz flicking stimulus of white LEDs in an enclosed case. Note the lack of a prominent 15 Hz response for the clinical EEG system as it is surrounded by noise of a similar magnitude. As per the criteria of the agreement study, in which the systems must produce a response with a Z-score greater than 5, this constitutes as fail. SSVEP; steady state visual evoked potentials. LED; light-emitting diodes. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 10: A visual illustration of agreement between two EEG systems measuring SSVEP of control participants. The average SSVEP response of (n = 20) control (healthy general population) subjects were plotted as the SNR against the frequency range of interest; 5-25 Hz for measurements with the SSVEP (green) and clinical EEG (red) systems. Each control subject produced two datasets for each system in the EEG validation study generating a total of 40 SSVEP datasets for each system. The two systems' illustrated responses were superimposed to visualize how closely they agree in SSVEP measurement when stimulated by the same visual stimulus: white LEDs flickering at 15 Hz for 30 s. The frequency range is filtered to below the predicted 30 Hz harmonic as to solely focus on the primary stimulus response. EEG; electroencephalography. SSVEP; steady state visual evoked potentials. SNR; signal-to-noise ratio. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| EEG System | Minimum | IQR 25 | Median | IQR 75 | Maximum | Mean | Std. Dev. |
| NC 1 | 4.402 | 8.187 | 9.829 | 13.667 | 20.703 | 11.148 | 4.577 |
| NC 2 | 4.509 | 9.123 | 11.055 | 12.586 | 23.225 | 11.615 | 4.213 |
| Grael 1 | 4.335 | 7.99 | 10.171 | 13.238 | 21.758 | 11.36 | 4.897 |
| Grael 2 | 4.979 | 9.002 | 10.619 | 12.667 | 20.177 | 11.22 | 3.865 |
Table 1: SSVEP statistical summary of control participants as measured by two EEG systems. Two SSVEP measurements were conducted on (n = 20) control (healthy general population) subjects using a portable EEG system, and an established clinical EEG system; SNR values were calculated from the SSVEP (with 15 Hz being taken as the primary signal). Statistics were calculated for each measurement dataset, including the minimum, maximum, 25th and 75th interquartile range (IQR), median, mean, and standard deviation (std dev). EEG; electroencephalography. SSVEP; steady state visual evoked potentials.
| EEG System | Group | N | ICC (95% CI) | Mean time between Test (min) |
| Nurochek | Control | 20 | 0.81 (0.59-0.92) | 0.5 |
| Grael | Control | 20 | 0.83 (0.63-0.93) | 0.5 |
Table 2: Test-retest reliability of the portable SSVEP System and clinical EEG systems. Reliability of the integrated SSVEP and clinical EEG system, were calculated based on inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) from two tests conducted 30 s apart, using the same set of control (healthy general population) individuals (n = 20); ICC (2,1). SNR values (with 15 Hz being taken as the primary signal) of the SSVEP tests were used as the parameter of interest for the ICC calculation. EEG; electroencephalography. SSVEP; steady state visual evoked potentials.