Physiological Signal Analysis and Stress Classification from VR Simulations Using Decision Tree Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stress is induced in response to any mental, physical or emotional change associated with our daily experiences. While short term stress can be quite beneficial, prolonged stress is detrimental to the heart, muscle tissues and immune system. In order to be proactive against these symptoms, it is important to assess the impact of stress due to various activities, which is initially determined through the change in the sympathetic (SNS) and parasympathetic (PNS) nervous systems. After acquiring physiological data wirelessly through captive electrocardiogram (ECG), galvanic skin response (GSR) and respiration (RESP) sensors, 21 time, frequency, nonlinear, GSR and respiration features were manually extracted from 15 subjects ensuing a baseline phase, virtual reality (VR) roller coaster simulation, color Stroop task and VR Bubble Bloom game. This paper presents a comprehensive physiological analysis of stress from an experiment involving a VR video game Bubble Bloom to manage stress levels. A personalized classification and regression tree (CART) model was developed using a novel Gini index algorithm in order to effectively classify binary classes of stress. A novel K-means feature was derived from 11 other features and used as an input in the Decision Tree (DT) algorithm, strong learners Ensemble Gradient Boosting (EGB) and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost (XGB)) embedded in a pipeline to classify 5 classes of stress. Results obtained indicate that heart rate (HR), approximate entropy (ApEN), low frequency and high frequency ratio (LF/HF), low frequency (LF), standard deviation (SD1), GSR and RESP all reduced and high frequency (HF) increased following the VR Bubble Bloom game phase. The personalized CART model was able to classify binary stress with 87.75% accuracy. It proved to be more effective than other related studies. EGB was able to classify binary stress with 100% accuracy, which outperformed every other related study. XGBoost and DT were able to classify five classes of stress with 72.22% using the novel K-means feature. This feature produced less error and better model performance in comparison to using all the features. Results substantiate that our proposed methods were more effective for stress classification than most related studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".