|
| Strength | Weakness |
| 1. Direct and fast brain reflection of aesthetic preference. | 1. Fewer people preferred intracranial experiments. |
| 2. Without ambiguity and dependence on the subjective evaluation results of the users. | 2. Clinical grade equipment is not easy to carry and move. |
| 3. Powerful and detailed brain assessment of ERP, time-frequency, topography, and fMRI analysis. | 3. Clinical grade equipment does not allow participants to move [147]. |
| 4. Interactive wearable market has been in the spotlight. | 4. More expensive and time-consuming compared with subjective user evaluations [148]. |
| 5. Continuous updates of neurophysiological studies in the world. | 5. The data accuracy of wearable BCI on active and reactive BCI experiences cannot compare with that of a clinical grade apparatus. |
| | 6. Environment consideration of processing the experiments such as signal interference and noise [149]. |
|
| Opportunity | Threat |
| 1. Neuromarketing is emerging, and neuroscience is ubiquitous in the real world [27, 150]. | 1. Subjective evaluation needs to become more comprehensive. Otherwise, research starts to be inclined to use electrophysiological data results. |
| 2. Fewer EEG or ERP studies on creative data or information visualization research. | 2. Uncomfortable sensor feeling might influence the UX design or user interaction process. |
| 3. Wearable EEG sensor technology can support many interactive platforms, such as Arduino. | 3. After users process the practice before the experiment starts, they lose the visual novelty of the real experiment. |
| 4. Possibility of combinations of brain equipment and other electrophysiological apparatus. | |
| 5. More comfortable and precise wearable interactive technology and devices are being invented. | |
|
