Comparability of Spot Versus Band Electrodes for Impedance Cardiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Although band and spot electrodes have been compared in prior research, they have not been evaluated (a) at identical anatomical locations, (b) during a single laboratory session, (c) with measures taken in close temporal proximity, (d) using a single impedance cardiograph unit, or (e) using sufficiently powerful statistical tests. Thirty-one healthy young adults completed a psychophysiological assessment which consisted of baseline, mental arithmetic stressor, and recovery conditions. Data from spot and band electrodes were collected by alternating between electrode types every minute of the experiment. Correlations between spot and band electrodes at absolute levels of all cardiovascular measures (cardiac output, impedance derivative, basal impedance level, Heather index, heart rate, left ventricular ejection time, pre-ejection period, stroke volume) were of high magnitude (r avg = .78), while the correlations for difference scores were lower (r avg = .50). Analyses of mean levels indicated spot electrodes yielded significantly lower values for the impedance derivative, Heather index, and basal impedance, and higher values for cardiac output and stroke volume, than band electrodes. The advantages and disadvantages associated with spot and band electrode configurations, as well as their use in ambulatory recording, are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".