Article... International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks. International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks2025
mEDA: Mobile DC-EDA Circuit Validation.
Article in ... International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks. International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Electrodermal activity (EDA) provides a direct indicator of sympathetic nervous system arousal through changes in skin conductance. However, wearable EDA sensing poses challenges such as inconsistent skin contact, electrode impedance variability, motion artifacts, and power constraints. To address these issues, this study presents mobile EDA (mEDA), a compact device driven by a stabilized direct-current source. A validation study was conducted on ten healthy adult participants in a time-synchronized protocol to collect data from BIOPAC and mEDA concurrently. mEDA recordings employed gel electrodes for P1-P5 and dry (textile) electrodes for P6-P10, while the BIOPAC MP160 system used gel electrodes for all participants. Participants underwent a 30-minute protocol of resting, deep breathing, and three cognitive tasks. The preprocessing pipeline consisted of low-pass filter and artifact (sharp peaks and flat line) removal. Cleaned signals were converted into frequency domain components for decomposition into low and high frequency components, skin conductance level (SCL), and skin conductance response (SCR) respectively. SCL and SCR were converted back to the time domain to analyze performance metrics between both devices. Pearson correlation, coherence, and Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) were computed on SCL, while zero-crossing peaks were counted for SCR analysis. With gel electrodes, the average Pearson correlation was 0.92 and the SCR peak count difference was 38. For textile electrodes, the correlation was 0.88 with a peak count difference of 119. Both configurations achieved coherence above 0.95 and DTW below 0.5 for most participants. These results demonstrate mEDA's reliable performance in capturing both tonic and phasic EDA across electrode configurations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.