The Awakening of a Need: The Events that Paved the Way to EEG Standardization

When Innovation Met Complexity

In the 1940s and 1950s, electroencephalography experienced explosive growth that some historians describe as "spreading with the speed and vigor of a prairie fire". However, this rapid expansion brought with it an unexpected problem: each laboratory developed its own methods, terminology, and interpretation criteria, creating a fragmented landscape that threatened the scientific credibility of the discipline.

The Foundation That Changed Everything

A decisive moment came in 1949 with the creation of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) in Paris. This organization, which celebrated its 70th anniversary in 2019, emerged from a historic scientific meeting held at the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases at Queen Square, London, in 1947, with approximately 100 participants from 17 countries.

The founding fathers of the IFCN -Henri Gastaut, Herbert H. Jasper, Edgar D. Adrian, Robert S. Schwab, W. Grey Walter, and Fritz Buchthal - did not merely establish an organization; they laid the foundations for what would become a global movement toward standardization. Their vision was clear: "to promote best practice in clinical neurophysiology through education and research throughout the world".

Symptoms of a Developing Crisis

By the 1950s, the problems of lack of standardization had become evident. Neurophysiologists faced challenges that would resonate decades later:

1. Terminological Babel: The same electroencephalographic phenomenon received different names in different centers, while the same term described completely different findings. As Grey Walter noted in 1949: "If we are to understand one another at all, our language must contain agreed terms and symbols, conventional signs and scales".

2. Methodological Anarchy: Technicians and engineers in different laboratories built their own electroencephalographs with divergent electrodes, channels, and amplifiers. This technological variability made comparison of results between centers virtually impossible.

3. Fragmented Normality Criteria: Multiple contradictory classification systems coexisted to define what constituted a "normal" EEG. As Hill described in 1952: "what is abnormal to some is, still, normal to others".

The Consequences of Chaos

This lack of uniformity was not merely an academic problem. It had real and potentially dangerous clinical consequences. The most dramatic case was the administration of anticonvulsant medications to patients with psychopathic disorders due to a misinterpretation of the term "dysrhythmia". This event vividly illustrated how terminological confusion could translate into erroneous therapeutic decisions.

Studies of the era revealed that approximately 15% of normal people had "abnormal" EEGs, fundamentally questioning the reliability of EEG as an indicator of brain dysfunction. This paradox echoed the interpretive variability problem we still face today: different experts reaching different conclusions about the same recording.

The Pioneers of the Solution

Recognizing the magnitude of the problem, the scientific community launched extensive initiatives to standardize EEG research. Committees emerged to unify fundamental aspects:

• Electrode Placement: Herbert H. Jasper developed the 10-20 placement system, ensuring that all brain areas were uniformly covered. This system, covering frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital regions, became the international standard.

• Unified Terminology: Glossaries were established to homogenize judgments about abnormality, a process that would continue evolving for decades.

• Automated Analysis: Automated data analysis procedures were introduced to reduce subjectivity in interpretation.

The Moment of Maturation

By the 1950s and 1960s, EEG had reached its zenith as a standard diagnostic tool in neurology. It had become an essential instrument for diagnosing epilepsy, sleep disorders, encephalitis, and brain tumors. However, this success also intensified the need for more rigorous standards.

The IFCN began publishing the first technical guidelines for digital clinical EEG recording, establishing the foundations for what would eventually become standardized reporting systems like SCORE.

Seeds of the Future

The events of these critical decades established a fundamental precedent: technological innovation must be accompanied by methodological standardization. The pioneers of clinical neurophysiology understood that without a common language and uniform methods, even the most brilliant advances could be lost in confusion.

This period sowed the seeds for developments we would see in later decades: the creation of computerized reporting systems, the implementation of multicenter databases, and ultimately, the emergence of platforms like SCORE that would transform clinical practice.

In our next article, we will explore how these historical foundations culminated in the first systematic attempts to create international standards for EEG interpretation.

Does your institution recognize the historical importance of these developments? Modern standardization has its roots in the struggles and visions of these pioneers.

JOIN OUR BLOG