Evaluation of CDA and CvxEDA Models

  • Greco A
  • Valenza G
  • Scilingo E
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
2Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

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).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Greco, A., Valenza, G., & Scilingo, E. P. (2016). Evaluation of CDA and CvxEDA Models. In Advances in Electrodermal Activity Processing with Applications for Mental Health (pp. 35–43). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46705-4_3

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free