OBJECTIVE: Electrodermal activity (EDA) is a noninvasive measure of sympathetic activation often used to study emotions, decision making, and health. The use of "ambulatory" EDA in everyday life presents novel challenges-frequent artifacts and long recordings-with inconsistent methods available for efficiently and accurately assessing data quality. We developed and validated a simple, transparent, flexible, and automated quality assessment procedure for ambulatory EDA data. METHODS: A total of 20 individuals with autism (5 females, 5-13 years) provided a combined 181 h of EDA data in their home using the Affectiva Q Sensor across 8 weeks. Our procedure identified invalid data using four rules: First, EDA out of range; second, EDA changes too quickly; third, temperature suggests the sensor is not being worn; and fourth, transitional data surrounding segments identified as invalid via the preceding rules. We identified invalid portions of a pseudorandom subset of our data (32.8 h, 18%) using our automated procedure and independent visual inspection by five EDA experts. RESULTS: Our automated procedure identified 420 min (21%) of invalid data. The five experts agreed strongly with each other (agreement: 98%, Cohen's κ: 0.87) and, thus, were averaged into a "consensus" rating. Our procedure exhibited excellent agreement with the consensus rating (sensitivity: 91%, specificity: 99%, accuracy: 92%, κ: 0.739 [95% CI = 0.738, 0.740]). CONCLUSION: We developed a simple, transparent, flexible, and automated quality assessment procedure for ambulatory EDA data. SIGNIFICANCE: Our procedure can be used beyond this study to enhance efficiency, transparency, and reproducibility of EDA analyses, with free software available at http://www.cbslab.org/EDAQA.
OBJECTIVE: Electrodermal activity (EDA) is a noninvasive measure of sympathetic activation often used to study emotions, decision making, and health. The use of "ambulatory" EDA in everyday life presents novel challenges-frequent artifacts and long recordings-with inconsistent methods available for efficiently and accurately assessing data quality. We developed and validated a simple, transparent, flexible, and automated quality assessment procedure for ambulatory EDA data. METHODS: A total of 20 individuals with autism (5 females, 5-13 years) provided a combined 181 h of EDA data in their home using the Affectiva Q Sensor across 8 weeks. Our procedure identified invalid data using four rules: First, EDA out of range; second, EDA changes too quickly; third, temperature suggests the sensor is not being worn; and fourth, transitional data surrounding segments identified as invalid via the preceding rules. We identified invalid portions of a pseudorandom subset of our data (32.8 h, 18%) using our automated procedure and independent visual inspection by five EDA experts. RESULTS: Our automated procedure identified 420 min (21%) of invalid data. The five experts agreed strongly with each other (agreement: 98%, Cohen's κ: 0.87) and, thus, were averaged into a "consensus" rating. Our procedure exhibited excellent agreement with the consensus rating (sensitivity: 91%, specificity: 99%, accuracy: 92%, κ: 0.739 [95% CI = 0.738, 0.740]). CONCLUSION: We developed a simple, transparent, flexible, and automated quality assessment procedure for ambulatory EDA data. SIGNIFICANCE: Our procedure can be used beyond this study to enhance efficiency, transparency, and reproducibility of EDA analyses, with free software available at http://www.cbslab.org/EDAQA.
Authors: Wolfram Boucsein; Don C Fowles; Sverre Grimnes; Gershon Ben-Shakhar; Walton T roth; Michael E Dawson; Diane L Filion Journal: Psychophysiology Date: 2012-06-08 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Mary E Rosenberger; William L Haskell; Fahd Albinali; Selene Mota; Jason Nawyn; Stephen Intille Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Mohsen Nabian; Yu Yin; Jolie Wormwood; Karen S Quigley; Lisa F Barrett; Sarah Ostadabbas Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2018-10-26 Impact factor: 3.316
Authors: Kathryn E Smith; Tyler B Mason; Adrienne Juarascio; Lauren M Schaefer; Ross D Crosby; Scott G Engel; Stephen A Wonderlich Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Caroline P Hoyniak; Maureen M McQuillan; John E Bates; Angela D Staples; A J Schwichtenberg; Sarah M Honaker Journal: J Genet Psychol Date: 2021-04-19 Impact factor: 1.333
Authors: Seth L Ness; Abigail Bangerter; Nikolay V Manyakov; David Lewin; Matthew Boice; Andrew Skalkin; Shyla Jagannatha; Meenakshi Chatterjee; Geraldine Dawson; Matthew S Goodwin; Robert Hendren; Bennett Leventhal; Frederick Shic; Jean A Frazier; Yvette Janvier; Bryan H King; Judith S Miller; Christopher J Smith; Russell H Tobe; Gahan Pandina Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Hugo F Posada-Quintero; Carol S Landon; Nicole M Stavitzski; Jay B Dean; Ki H Chon Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 4.566