From: lucas darten (ljdarten_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 2001-06-08 17:24:12
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moritz v. Buttlar" <info_at_baltic-microsolutions.de>
To: <buildcheapeeg_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: [buildcheapeeg] Re: Liability issues, etc.
> Thatīs also the reason why I didnīt want to call it openly an EEG device.
This
> name could confuse people to use our device like an EEG and use it for
> declaring somebody braindead (in the worst case). If we call it EEG, we
canīt
> say itīs not a medical device and it doesnīt need certification. There are
also
> lots of rules especially about medical measurement devices regarding
> calibration and so on. To avoid confusion about the goal our device was
> designed for, we should maybe not use the term EEG.
>
It seems to me that there would be no problem saying it is a nonmedical EEG
device. That is after all, what it would be. It would be like thermometers
you buy in the store, I believe some of them say they are not a medical
device or something like that.
I think the real problem is when you refer to it as a neurofeedback device.
Because that implies you are using it for feedback training, where eeg only
implies that it shows your brainwaves to you.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 2002-07-27 12:28:30 BST