Advertisement

Evaluation of CDA and CvxEDA Models

Chapter

Abstract

There is no universally accepted experimental protocol for the validation of EDA analysis algorithms. A characterization in terms of sensitivity and specificity, as typically done in a pattern recognition framework, is not directly applicable in this context since there is no one-to-one correspondence between external stimuli supposed to elicit ANS responses and skin conductance responses (see Bach and Friston, Psychophysiology 50(1):15–22, 2013 for a discussion). Unless the sympathetic nerve activity is also recorded through microneurography, failure to detect a phasic SC response after the occurrence of an experimental stimulus may be equally ascribed to a low sensitivity of the algorithm under study or, alternatively, to the inability of the stimulus to consistently elicit a phasic response. Similarly, detection of phasic activity in the absence of stimulation may be caused by electrodermal changes that are not stimulus-elicited but spontaneous and non-specific, possibly a result of muscular contractions or respiratory irregularities (Boucsein, Electrodermal activity, 2nd edn. Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2012).

Keywords

Positive Predictive Value Skin Conductance Response Tonic Component Forced Expiration Arousal Session 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. [1]
    Benedek, M., & Kaernbach, C. (2010). A continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity. Journal of neuroscience methods, 190(1), 80–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. [15]
    Boucsein, W. (2012). Electrodermal activity (2nd ed). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  3. [64]
    Bach, D. R., & Friston, K. J. (2013). Model-based analysis of skin conductance responses: Towards causal models in psychophysiology. Psychophysiology, 50(1), 15–22.Google Scholar
  4. [89]
    Kira, Y., Ogura, T., Aramaki, S., Kubo, T., Hayasida, T., & Hirasawa, Y. (2001). Sympathetic skin response evoked by respiratory stimulation as a measure of sympathetic function. Clinical Neurophysiology, 112(5), 861–865.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. [90]
    Lang, P., Bradley, M., & Cuthbert, B. (2005). International affective picture system iaps): Digitized photographs, instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical Report A-6. University of Florida.Google Scholar
  6. [91]
    Cook, E. W., Hawk, L. W., Davis, T. L., & Stevenson, V. E. (1991). Affective individual differences and startle reflex modulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100(1), 5.Google Scholar
  7. [92]
    Lang, P., Greenwald, M., Bradley, M., & Hamm, A. (1993). Looking at pictures: Affective, facial, visceral, & behavioral reactions. Psychophysiology, 30(3), 261–273.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. [93]
    Hollander, M., Wolfe, D. A., & Chicken, E. (2014). Nonparametric statistical methods. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Engineering, Bioengineering and Robotics Research Center “E. Piaggio”University of PisaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations