Hate to rain on this person's parade, but his findings are mostly meaningless. You cannot simply infer neurological activity from a single electrode. Besides the need for a proper ground/reference, you also need electrodes placed in the correct anatomical locations to derive any meaningful insights into attention networks.
Yes I do understand it like measuring temperature at one point on mac and trying to predict what application its running. However thats not what I wanted (though I dont know what I wanted), I was curious how activity changes and If am not wrong these activity comes at cost both energy and capacity to think / focus. Who knows if you can wear fitbit for mind tomorrow :)
Unless something has happened to drastically alter EEG analysis since last I checked, this is meaningless with one electrode. You need at least one other specifically to measure eye/muscle movement, etc.
I think the author means single channel and not single electrode. At least the picture suggests that there are three electrodes (one to the skull two white ear clips for ground/reference). For bipolar electrodes you need three: channel, ground and reference. For unipolar electrodes, just two.
You can remove artifacts like eye and muscle movements with prepossessing, not as well as with electrodes, but still.
I'm more worried about electrode connections and electrode quality in these amateur EEG applications. You also want high quality active electrodes if you take EEG outside laboratory. I'm also skeptical about these dry skin electrodes (no alcohol scrubbing and conductive paste). NeuroSky devices are surprisingly cheap. I would be very interested to know how well they work in practice.
People are way too negative. This guy is trying something and showing what he did. Not every discover came from proper scientific laboratory or with a standard procedure. Instead of hating what he is doing, I would encourage him to go further. In my opinion, I prefer those kind of research than nothing at all and found interesting his conclusion. Keep trying and improve and some day it will be probably something.
This is common. Journals will even refuse to publish things for being "too negative":
“In October 2006, Potti and Nevins described in Nature Medicine how examining the sensitivity of cell lines to particular drugs could predict patients’ responses to cancer therapies for a range of cancers.
[...]
We had difficulties pretty early on,” Baggerly says. He and Coombes say they found errors in the 2006 paper, including genes that didn’t seem to belong on the list and tumor samples that were incorrectly labeled.
[...]
But Potti and Nevins continued to publish papers using the same method. This troubled Baggerly. He became obsessed with determining why the Duke team could make their prediction models work when he and Coombes could not.In subsequent papers by the Duke group, Baggerly says he found new errors and contacted both Lancet Oncology and the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO), where they had appeared. Both declined to publish Baggerly’s letters
[...]
Baggerly then learned that Duke was running three clinical trials using the Potti- Nevins approach to assign patients to treatment. He took a new tack: publishing a paper of his own. He and Coombes shared their critique of several papers published by Potti and Nevins with a “prominent” biological journal, he says, whose editors suggested that the paper was too negative. "
http://www.sciencemag.org.edu/content/329/5992/614