Multimodal Physiological Signals and Machine Learning for Stress Detection by Wearable Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wearable technology is growing in popularity, and wearable devices, such as smartwatches, are used in many applications, from fitness tracking and activity recognition to health monitoring. As the affordability and popularity of such devices increase, so does the amount of personal and unique data that they provide. At the same time, advantages in microprocessor and memory technology enable multiple physiological signal sensors integrated into wearable devices to collect personal and unique data. After the data is extracted, machine learning classification algorithms can help investigate the insights of the data. In this work, we examine the performance of a real-time stress detection system based on physiological signals collected from wearable devices. Specifically, three physiological signals, electrodermal activity (EDA), electrocardiogram (ECG), and photoplethysmo-graph (PPG) that can be collected through smartwatches, are examined for stress classification. Six machine learning methods are used for the classification in a post-acquisition phase, at a computer, including Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Random Forest, Naive Bayes, Logistic Regression, and Stacking Ensemble Learning (SEL). Data from two publicly available datasets are used for training and testing. We examine the accuracy of each modality and the combination of all modalities. According to evaluation results, EDA has the best accuracy when SEL is used for classification. Also, the accuracy of EDA outperforms the other signals and combinations, in comparison with any of the other machine learning approaches, for both datasets. EDA collected from the wearable device has a great potential to be used for a real-time stress detection system.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".