MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Breathe Easy EDA: A MATLAB toolbox for psychophysiology data management, cleaning, and analysis

2018· preprint· en· W4236190111 on OpenAlexfundno aff
John Ksander, Sarah M. Kark, Christopher R. Madan

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsToolboxComputer scienceArousalPsychophysiologyMATLABArtifact (error)Artificial intelligenceNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns4:p>Electrodermal activity (EDA) recordings are widely used in experimental psychology to measure skin conductance responses (SCRs) that reflect sympathetic nervous system arousal. However, irregular respiration patterns and deep breaths can cause EDA fluctuations that are difficult to distinguish from genuine arousal-related SCRs, presenting a methodological challenge that increases the likelihood of false positives in SCR analyses. Thus, it is crucial to identify respiration-related artifacts in EDA data. Here we developed a novel and freely distributed MATLAB toolbox, Breathe Easy EDA (BEEDA). BEEDA is a flexible toolbox that facilitates EDA visual inspection, allowing users to identify and eliminate respiration artifacts. BEEDA further includes functionality for EDA data analyses (measuring tonic and phasic EDA components) and reliability analyses for artifact identification. The toolbox is suitable for any experiment recording both EDA and respiration data, and flexibly adjusts to experiment-specific parameters (e.g., trial structure and analysis parameters).</ns4:p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.189
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207