Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Feb 5;15(2):e0228949. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228949

Electrodermal activity patient simulator

Gregor Geršak 1,*,#, Janko Drnovšek 1,#
Editor: Dominic Micklewright2
PMCID: PMC7001969  PMID: 32023317

Abstract

Electrodermal activity (EDA) is an electrical property of the human skin, correlated with person’s psychological arousal. Nowadays, different types of EDA measuring devices are used in highly versatile fields–from research, health-care and education to entertainment industry. But despite their universal use the quality of their measuring function (their accuracy) is questioned or investigated very seldom. In this paper, we propose a concept of an EDA patient simulator—a device enabling metrological testing of EDA devices by means of a variable resistance. EDA simulator was designed based on a programmable light-controlled resistor with a wide resistance range, capable of simulating skin conductance levels (SCL) and responses (SCR) and was equipped with an artificial hand. The hand included electrically conductive fingers for attachment of EDA device electrodes. A minimal set of tests for evaluating an EDA device was identified, the simulator’s functionality discussed and some testing results presented.

Introduction

Electrodermal activity (EDA) is an electrical property of the human skin dependent on changes of sympathetic part of the autonomic nervous system. EDA of a person changes when hers/his level of arousal changes [1]. Nowadays it is used with increasing regularity, because industry and research institutions are interested in acquiring objective information of human perception of products, services or even human arousal or emotions identification during cognitive and mental tasks. The reason of EDA’s popularity is relative low cost of the measuring devices, simplicity of their manufacturing and use, combined with relatively fast physiological response.

In the most simplified version, electrodermal activity is a contact non-invasive measure of human sweating, which could be a result of body thermal regulation processes or of a certain psychological arousal level of the person. Nowadays, the most common assumption is that when a person is psychologically aroused, excited or activated, hers/his EDA signal increases [13], although there are also other opinions [4].

EDA can be monitored within controlled laboratory environments in static, sedentary position (e.g. sitting at a computer) in controlled environmental conditions (e.g. air humidity and temperature, vibration, noise, lightning) with correspondingly less disturbances, measuring errors and unwanted moving artefacts. On the other hand, monitoring of EDA in real-life conditions outside laboratory provides a more ecologically valid setting, but is much more burdened by environmental conditions, moving artefacts, dynamic errors etc. [5,6].

In clinical settings and applied psychology EDA is often used for stress, pain and sleep studies [710]. It was used in studies of clinical conditions like schizophrenia, panic disorder, anxiety, multiple sclerosis, attention-deficit hyperactivity-disorder (ADHD), autism, Alzheimer [1119]. EDA was used also in ICT (information and communications technology) and entertainment [2024], education [25,26] and food industry research [27,28].

In general, biomedical devices are clinically validated by means of a comparison with a reference device, both used on an adequately large population of human subjects. Involvement of a large group of needed subjects and logistical, ethical and practical issues are the reason for complexity and high cost of clinical validations. Therefore, other means of evaluation of devices are envisaged, e.g. simplifications of comparison protocols, reduction of number of participants. One of the possible solutions are patient simulators.

Patient simulators are devices substituting patients. They offer a controlled way of evaluating biomedical measuring devices. A simulator is a device for imitating a physical phenomenon and is used for testing reliability, robustness and accuracy of a measuring device. Patient simulators are devices used for testing and/or calibrating biomedical devices, which measure physiological parameters. Their primary function is to generate signals, equal or similar to real physiological ones in order to test the measuring accuracy of devices measuring these signals. A well-known example are blood pressure (BP) patient simulators [2931]. BP simulators are electromechanical devices, capable of generating air pressure pulses, which are fed to BP monitor. The air pulses, which can have artificial or physiological shapes are used to test the repeatability, stability and even accuracy of non-invasive BP monitors. Similarly, patient simulators for ECG, EEG, heart-rate and pulse oximetry are used [32,33].

An EDA simulator is a device capable of generating typical skin conductance (SC) waveforms, which facilitate metrological checks of any EDA measuring device in both static and dynamic conditions. As always the case with any device equipped with measuring function, also EDA devices are of different levels of metrological quality. I.e. their measuring error and measuring uncertainty can be very diverse, and consequently their reliability more or less questionable. In order to get reliable, accurate and repeatable measuring results, metrological checks or tests of EDA devices should be performed regularly.

Electrodermal activity

EDA signal primarily contains two pieces of information–the level of the signal and the response of the signal. Tonic, slowly changing part of the SC signal is named skin conductance level (SCL). Fast phasic pulses are called electrodermal responses, or skin conductance responses (SCR). SCL value indicates the level of psychological arousal of the subject, while the number of SCRs are a measure of subject’s momentary arousal and represents pulses in skin conductance signal (Fig 1). SCR occur where EDA amplitudes exceed a certain threshold in a certain time period (e.g. pulses occurring less than 9 seconds after the beginning of the increase and having amplitudes larger than 0.02 uS) [3,34]. Commonly SCRs are estimated after 0.05 Hz high pass filtering and employment of a response threshold of 0.01 to 0.05 uS [35]. Number of SCR per minute is a measure of the subject’s arousal. As a rule-of-a-thumb, values of a couple of SCR per minute indicate the subject is in relaxed state (baseline) and values above 20 SCR/min indicate an aroused subject [1,34].

Fig 1. Electrodermal activity with detected skin conductance responses (SCR) (marked with black dots).

Fig 1

Typical values of raw EDA depend strongly on individuals and experimental situations and can vary considerably, but usually skin conductance level (SCL) ranges up to a couple of tens of microsiemens [1,3]. In terms of phasic skin conductance, SCR amplitudes can typically range from the threshold to a maximum of around a couple of uS.

EDA devices

There are two general forms of EDA devices, based on two methods—endosomatic and exosomatic. Endosomatic method does not apply any external current, and exosomatic applies an external current to the skin. Three main measuring methods can be identified: i) endosomatic method, ii) AC exosomatic method (applying AC current) and iii) DC exosomatic method (applying DC current via electrodes) [1].

Exosomatic measurements by means of a DC current (Fig 2), represent the basis of today’s most widely used instruments. They are predominantly used because of their simplicity, the need for only two electrodes, and possibility of monitoring both tonic and phasic EDA signals. They do, however, lack some advantages of endosomatic method (which is a very unobtrusive method with no special amplifying and coupling systems needed) and AC exosomatic method (no electrode polarization issues) [1,36]. There is a huge variety of EDA devices available (portable, battery powered, embedded or built-in in other settings (e.g. into a computer mouse or steering wheel), with wet or dry electrodes, equipped with only SCL measurement function or additional SCR detection built-in algorithm, logging function etc.).

Fig 2. Via electrodes (black) DC exosomatic measuring instrument applies a DC voltage of up to U = 1 V to the skin.

Fig 2

By measuring the ratio of applied voltage U and resulting current I skin conductance G can be calculated (G = I / U).

Sampling frequency of a typical EDA device should be in the order of 10 Hz and above, but this strongly depends on the signal processing the researcher wants to perform. If phasic skin conductance response (SCR) and other fast changing events in electrodermal activity are needed, the sampling rate should be at least 200 Hz, 1 kHz or even 2 kHz being the most common values with the desktop laboratory measuring systems [3,34]. Wearable and especially wireless streaming systems usually have a lower acquisition rate (up to 32 Hz).

Typical acquired raw EDS signal is shown in Fig 3.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Typical raw EDA signal (solid line) of a participant during a mental task (dashed line).

Testing of EDA devices

To ensure the reliable and accurate EDA measurement, one of the simplest tests a researcher should perform before every measurement is static calibration test of the EDA measuring equipment. By connecting the EDA device’s electrodes to a fixed resistor (e.g. 1% precision), the resulting skin conductance can be quickly checked in static conditions (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Raw acquired EDA signal during testing of a dual sensor EDA device (two electrodes acquisition waveforms are represented by the white and red line).

Fig 4

After first 100 seconds EDA device was tested using a fixed resistor of 54 kΩ, corresponding to 18.5 uS (encircled).

In order to check the functionality and response of the EDA device a simple dynamic test should be performed after the attachment of electrodes to the subject and adequate EDA signal dynamics visually checked by using startle stimuli. Namely, deep breaths, a sudden sound (a loud clap), slap on the inner lower arm or cheek, coughing, scratching, light pinching should result in an increase of the SC level after a second or so. Note, that if such tests fail, even when the EDA device works, the subject could be a non-responder (there are between 5% and 25% of non-responders in normal population) [3,34].

For a more thorough test of the dynamics of EDA instrumentation, we are proposing a concept of a EDA patient simulator, which can be used as a reliable and repeatable device for testing the dynamic functionality and measuring reliability of a EDA device.

EDA patient simulator

Requirements of an EDA simulator

Based on EDA phenomena and our experience with skin conductance measuring methods, some possible requirements of an EDA simulator were identified: i) metrologically accurate output, ii) capability of static calibration of EDA devices (e.g. several fixed resistances for measuring range 1 uS to 20 uS), iii) capability of dynamic evaluation of EDA devices (e.g. generation of SCL and SCR, generation of moving artefacts etc.), iv) simple intuitive user interface (no specialized knowledge of EDA phenomena needed), v) portability (battery powered), vi) suitable safety level (medical grade galvanic isolation), vii) a certain degree of automation (e.g. fully automatic simulator with options of manually adjusting certain parameters), viii) possibility of testing EDA devices with different electrode types (e.g. single-use, wet and dry electrodes, shape and type of the electrodes, possibility of device-only testing (without electrodes)).

EDA simulator design

In this study, a prototype of EDA simulator was designed as a variable resistor, capable of setting the conductance levels of up to 20 uS (i.e. above 50 k) with addition of pulses, corresponding to SCR phasic pulses.

The variable resistor had to fulfil the following specifications: 0 to 500 k range, fast time response, galvanic isolation, and high electrical strength. During the designing and building process several possibilities of variable resistors were checked; voltage-controlled resistor (JFET or MOSFET transistor), temperature-controlled resistor (temperature sensor), force-controlled resistor (force transducer), magnetically-controlled resistor (magnetoresistance), programmable resistor (digital potentiometer), and light-controlled resistor (photoresistor, photodiode, optocoupler). Due to an elegant fulfilment of the safety and electrical strength requirement and general simplicity of use, in the final prototype the light-controlled resistance was used. Variable current-controlled resistance was realized by means of an optocoupler—increasing of current through photodiode increased the emitted light and in turn decreased the resistance of the coupled photoresistor (i.e. increased the conductance of the resistor).

In order to check the feasibility and operation of the optocoupler concept, a prototype of EDA simulator was built. The built prototype had an embedded 100 k fixed resistor for static calibration and could generate SCL signals of up to 20 uS and two different SCR amplitudes–small amplitude (0.25 uS) and large amplitude (0.5 uS) (Fig 5). To test EDA device in a wider range of possible psychological arousal levels, the prototype had also a SCR feature—occurrence frequency of SCR could be selected from 5/min, 10/min in 20/min, roughly corresponding to a relaxed, activated and aroused person [1,34].

Fig 5. Skin conductance versus time–an example of an EDA simulator output.

Fig 5

2 uS electrodermal signal was generated, which increased to 7.2 uS with four superpositioned 0.25 uS SCRs, occurring with 5/min frequency.

The main components of the simulator circuit were an LDR optocoupler (NSL-32SR2 by Silonex), an amplification circuit based on LM358AN (by Texas Instruments) and a 32-bit ARM microcontroller developing board (3.3 V Arduino Due SAM3X8E ARM cortex-M3 by Arduino Inc.) (Fig 6). Using these, variable resistor could be set from 0.04 uS to 16 mS (25 M to 60 ). The SCL level and SCR amplitudes were set digitally using digital-to-analog output of the Arduino board. Output signal was generated using two-dimensional waveform tables of three EDA signal shapes: SCL signal, small-amplitude SCR signal and high-amplitude SCR signal.

Fig 6. EDA simulator circuit schematics.

Fig 6

A plastic human hand model was used for EDA device’s electrodes attachment. Two fingers were covered with electrically conductive metallized nylon fabric (Shieldex Zell by Statex) plated with silver, copper and tin with surface resistivity of less than 0.02 /ϒ [37] ensuring a reliable electrical contact for the electrodes of the EDA device (Fig 7). Such a set-up is appropriate for testing EDA devices for measuring skin conductance using two electrodes, e.g. on two fingers. On the other hand, a number of different (usually low-cost) EDA devices measuring skin conductance on the user’s wrists are used today. To test these, the simulator has built-in EDA terminals, which can be connected to the device’s electrodes by simple leads.

Fig 7.

Fig 7

(a) EDA simulator with active finger electrodes on index and middle fingers; (b) testing of an EDA device with its clamp electrodes attached to simulator.

One of the basic differences in the waveform of presented EDA simulator in comparison with the real, physiological waveform of human skin is the shape of the time series (Fig 8). Although the simulator waveform looks symmetric and quite artificial, we consider a simplified signal like the one on Fig 8 (right) suitable for the purpose of testing the functionality and basic accuracy of EDA device. For more comprehensive evaluations, the physiology-based signals should be used.

Fig 8.

Fig 8

Schematics of real physiological waveform (left) and artificially generated output waveform of an EDA simulator (right).

Testing the functionality of simulator

Using the simulator’s built-in precision 100 kΩ resistor (equals 10 uS) a static calibration of a low-cost (under 100 EUR) EDA device was performed (Fig 9). If the fixed resistor itself was calibrated, using calibration by comparison method would allow determination of the measuring error and estimating the uncertainty budget of the EDA device (for details on metrological calibration of EDA devices see [38,39]). After a certain transient time (typically under 0.5 s), time stability of the simulator was estimated by calculating the standard deviation of the output and was in the order of 0.05 uS. Which suffices for the majority of applications using EDA monitoring.

Fig 9. EDA device acquisition of skin conductance, generated by EDA simulator during static calibration.

Fig 9

In time interval marked with dashed lines, EDA device was measuring a fixed 100 kΩ (10 uS) resistor.

In addition to static calibration, dynamic evaluation of the low-cost EDA device was performed. Reference signal of different amplitudes and different SCR pattern was generated by the simulator (Figs 5 and 10). Maximal dynamic error and uncertainty of an EDA device was calculated to estimate the accuracy of EDA device versus the simulator output. We tested a number of different EDA devices and the errors and uncertainties were below 0.1 uS and 0.3 uS, respectively, error being difference between the EDA reading and simulator setting, and the uncertainty calculated as geometrical sum of simulator’s uncertainty, repeatability and reproducibility of the measurement, EDA device repeatability and resolution, resolution of simulator (for details on dynamic evaluations of biomedical instrumentation see [29,38,39]).

Fig 10. EDA device acquisition of skin conductance, generated by EDA simulator.

Fig 10

Simulator generated SCRs of different frequencies (5 SCR per min, 10 SCR per min and 20 SCR per min).

In addition to classical (SCL measuring) EDA devices, the simulator’s performance was tested also using an EDA device, equipped with an automated SCR detection function. Different frequencies of occurrence of SCR pulses were set on simulator (Fig 10 shows the EDA device acquisition waveform). In addition, EDA device’s SCR detection algorithm could be tested. Fig 11 shows raw signal of the EDA device acquired with simulator set to two different amplitudes of the SCR. Tested EDA device’s automated SCR detection was set to a 0.3 uS threshold and the water drops indicate the detected SCR (Fig 11).

Fig 11. EDA device acquisition of skin conductance, generated by EDA simulator.

Fig 11

Simulator generated SCRs of different amplitudes (0.25 uS and 0.45 uS).

Table 1 contains the performance of the EDA simulator regarding stability. If we define a target uncertainty for a common EDA measuring device of approx. 0.1 uS, the results show, that the built simulator is adequately stable to reliably check common EDA measuring devices.

Table 1. Stability of the EDA simulator output (all values in uS and measured within a 10 min interval).

Simulator settings Average value Standard deviation
frequency 5/min 4.93 0.091
frequency 10/min 9.94 0.082
frequency 20/min 19.96 0.080
SCL (fixed resistor 10 uS) 9.99 0.001
SCL (fixed resistor 4.5 uS) 4.53 0.001
small SCR amplitude 0.26 0.005
large SCR amplitude 0.45 0.005

Discussion and conclusions

Measurement of electrodermal activity is a rather simple measuring method using simple and low-cost measuring instruments. It is more and more used in different areas of research, from medicine, ergonomics, biomedical and control engineering, robotics and ergonomics, psychology and education, sports, entertainment to social science and economics. But it is never seriously doubted, in the sense of determining measuring accuracy and quality of measuring result like in [3840].

In this paper a concept of an EDA simulator for testing EDA devices is, to the best of our knowledge, presented for the first time. EDA simulator is a device capable of generating artificial waveforms of electrical resistance, in part similar to physiological ones. The simulator’s main purpose is evaluating the functionality and measuring quality of an EDA device. We presented the simulator’s design and basic functionality. Different levels of static EDA signal can be set (i.e. different SCL level). In addition, SCR pulses can be generated, varying in amplitudes and occurring frequency.

While the embedded optocoupler is an elegant solution for constructing a variable resistor, at the same time it is also a major limitation of the proposed EDA simulator. Optocouplers are electronic elements not intended for precise operation and during our design, the optimal optocoupler was selected from a batch of elements which had consistent resistance values within the range. The inaccuracies resulted in a certain instability of shape and amplitudes of the generated waveform (see pulses in Fig 11). In the process of dynamic evaluation, an additional simulator limitation is originating from the use of optocoupler—latency of up to 100 ms. The time constant is in the order of seconds (Fig 5), therefore test of EDA device should only be performed after a transient time. Another error source could in principle be the optocouplers temperature dependence, which in our experiments was controlled by maintaining stable laboratory environmental conditions.

EDA simulators main objective is to determine EDA device’s accuracy and functionality (e.g. checking its algorithm for SCR detection). Using tests of different EDA devices (with dry stainless steel and gold electrodes, clamp dry electrodes, wet Ag/AgCl electrodes, continuous and intermittent measurements), the built EDA simulator was proven to represent a reliable apparatus for quick tests and even thorough evaluations of any EDA device. Nevertheless, for reliable electrodermal activity measurements, in addition to tests using the EDA simulator, repeatability of an EDA devices should still be additionally evaluated using measurements on a human subject (instructing actions like deep breaths, coughing, scratching, pinching which should result in an increase of the SCL).

A very useful feature of the EDA simulator would be capability of testing several devices simultaneously. This would allow for a fast check of numerous devices (e.g. for experiments in education, where around 30 devices are worn by the pupils and they all need to be checked periodically [41]). The current simulator design is not capable of providing stable resistance values for two or more EDA devices, since the current they are feeding to the simulator’s fingers interfered with each other measuring function and the simulator itself. The future versions of simulator design are planned to include this feature.

It has to be noted that the generated signal has an artificial, non-physiological shape, i.e. it is only an approximation of real physiological electrodermal signal. Which in fact is true also for the majority of other patient simulators (e.g. BP, oximetry) [29,30,32]. In the future, real physiological waveforms could be acquired for a more genuine depiction of the dynamics of the human skin. In principle, the future simulator should be able to generate a wider range of EDA behaviours, e.g. moving artefacts, complex changes of both SCL and simultaneous SCR.

Data Availability

All data files are available from the Figshare database (DOI no. 10.6084/m9.figshare.11551224).

Funding Statement

The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Slovenian Research Agency (research core funding No. P2-0225). http://www.arrs.si/en/index.asp. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Boucsein W. Electrodermal Activity. second. London: Springer London; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Christopoulos GI, Uy MA, Yap WJ. The Body and the Brain: Measuring Skin Conductance Responses to Understand the Emotional Experience. Organ Res Methods. 2019;22: 394–420. 10.1177/1094428116681073 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Figner B, Murphy RO. Using skin conductance in judgment and decision making research. In: Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Kuehberger A, Ranyard R, editors. A handbook of process tracing methods for decision research New York, NY: Psychology Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kleckner IR, Quigley KS. An approach to mapping the neurophysiological state of the body to affective experience. In: Barrett LF, Russell J, editors. The Psychological Construction of Emotion The Guilford Press, New York; 2015. pp. 265–301. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Picard RW, Fedor S, Ayzenberg Y. Multiple Arousal Theory and Daily-Life Electrodermal Activity Asymmetry. Emot Rev. 2016;8: 62–75. 10.1177/1754073914565517 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kasos K, Zimonyi S, Kasos E, Lifshitz A, Varga K, Szekely A. Does the Electrodermal System “Take Sides” When It Comes to Emotions? Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2018;43: 203–210. 10.1007/s10484-018-9398-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Setz C, Arnrich B, Schumm J, Marca R La, Tr G, Ehlert U. Using a Wearable EDA Device. 2010;14: 410–417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kushki A, Fairley J, Merja S, King G, Chau T. Comparison of blood volume pulse and skin conductance responses to mental and affective stimuli at different anatomical sites. Physiol Meas. 2011;32: 1529–1539. 10.1088/0967-3334/32/10/002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Poh M-Z, Swenson NC, Picard RW. A wearable sensor for unobtrusive, long-term assessment of electrodermal activity. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2010;57: 1243–52. 10.1109/TBME.2009.2038487 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Romine W, Banerjee T, Goodman G, Romine W, Banerjee T, Goodman G. Toward Sensor-Based Sleep Monitoring with Electrodermal Activity Measures. Sensors. 2019;19: 1417 10.3390/s19061417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Schell AM, Dawson ME, Rissling A, Ventura J, Subotnik KL, Gitlin MJ, et al. Electrodermal predictors of functional outcome and negative symptoms in schizophrenia. Psychophysiology. 2005;42: 483–492. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00300.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dawson ME, Schell AM. What does electrodermal activity tell us about prognosis in the schizophrenia spectrum? Schizophr Res. 2002;54: 87–93. 10.1016/s0920-9964(01)00355-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Roth WT, Wilhelm FH, Trabert W. Autonomic instability during relaxation in panic disorder. Psychiatry Res. 1998;80: 155–164. 10.1016/s0165-1781(98)00066-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Grillon C. Associative learning deficits increase symptoms of anxiety in humans. Biol Psychiatry. 2002;51: 851–858. 10.1016/s0006-3223(01)01370-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wendt J, Lotze M, Weike AI, Hosten N, Hamm AO. Brain activation and defensive response mobilization during sustained exposure to phobia-related and other affective pictures in spider phobia. Psychophysiology. 2008;45: 205–215. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00620.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kleeberg J, Bruggimann L, Annoni JM, van Melle G, Bogousslavsky J, Schluep M. Altered decision-making in multiple sclerosis: A sign of impaired emotional reactivity? Ann Neuorol. 2004;56: 787–795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Iaboni F, Douglas VI, Ditto B. Psychophysiological response of ADHD children to reward and extinction. Psychophysiology. 1997;34: 116–123. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1997.tb02422.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hamann S, Monarch ES, Goldstein FC. Impaired fear conditioning in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia. 2002;40: 1187–1195. 10.1016/s0028-3932(01)00223-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Flor H, Knost B, Birbaumer N. Processing of pain- and body-related verbal material in chronic pain patients: central and peripheral correlates. Pain. 1997;73: 413–421. 10.1016/s0304-3959(97)00137-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mandryk RL, Atkins MS. A fuzzy physiological approach for continuously modeling emotion during interaction with play technologies. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2007;65: 329–347. 10.1016/J.IJHCS.2006.11.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Nacke LE, Grimshaw MN, Lindley C a. More than a feeling: Measurement of sonic user experience and psychophysiology in a first-person shooter game. Interact Comput. 2010;22: 336–343. 10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ekman I, Chanel G, Kivikangas JM, Salminen M, Järvelä M, Ravaja N. Psychophysiological Methods for Game Experience Research—Directions for Assessing Social Experience. Innovation. 2010; [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Geršak G, Lu H, Guna J. Effect of VR technology matureness on VR sickness. Multimed Tools Appl. 2018; 1–17. 10.1007/s11042-018-6969-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Pope GC, Halter RJ, Pope GC, Halter RJ. Design and Implementation of an Ultra-Low Resource Electrodermal Activity Sensor for Wearable Applications ‡. Sensors. 2019;19: 2450 10.3390/s19112450 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nourbakhsh N, Wang Y, Chen F, Calvo RA. Using Galvanic Skin Response for Cognitive Load Measurement in Arithmetic and Reading Tasks The University of Sydney. Aust Comput Hum Interact Conf. 2012; 420–423. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Geršak V, Geršak G, Drnovšek J. Psychophysiological masurements in education. 20th IMEKO World Congress 2012. 2012. pp. 788–791. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.De Wijk R a., He W, Mensink MGJ, Verhoeven RHG, De Graaf C. ANS responses and facial expressions differentiate between the taste of commercial breakfast drinks. PLoS One. 2014;9: 1–9. 10.1371/journal.pone.0093823 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.He W, Boesveldt S, De Graaf C, De Wijk R a. Dynamics of autonomic nervous system responses and facial expressions to odors. Front Psychol. 2014;5: 1–8. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gersak G, Zemva A, Drnovsek J. A procedure for evaluation of non-invasive blood pressure simulators. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2009;47: 1221–1228. 10.1007/s11517-009-0532-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Amoore JN, Vacher E, Murray IC, Mieke S, King ST, Smith FE, et al. Can a simulator that regenerates physiological waveforms evaluate oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure devices? Blood Press Monit. 2006;11: 63–7. 10.1097/01.mbp.0000200482.72410.e2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Amoore J. Can Simulators Evaluate Systematic Differences between Oscillometric NIBP Monitors? 2000;5: 81–89. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wolfe G. Pulse Oximeters 101. Biomed Instrum Technol. 2006;40: 363–365. 10.2345/i0899-8205-40-5-363.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Burke MJ, Nasor M. An accurate programmable ECG simulator. J Med Eng Technol. 2001;25: 97–102. 10.1080/03091900110051640 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Braithwaite J, Watson D, Jones R, Rowe M. A Guide for Analysing Electrodermal Activity (EDA) & Skin Conductance Responses (SCRs) for Psychological Experiments. Psychophysiology. 2013;49: 1017–1034. Available: http://www.bhamlive.bham.ac.uk/Documents/college-les/psych/saal/guide-electrodermal-activity.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Boucsein W, Fowles DC, Grimnes S, Ben-Shakhar G, Roth WT, Dawson ME, et al. Publication recommendations for electrodermal measurements. Psychophysiology. 2012;49: 1017–1034. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01384.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Pabst O, Tronstad C, Grimnes S, Fowles D, Martinsen ØG. Comparison between the AC and DC measurement of electrodermal activity. Psychophysiology. 2017;54: 374–385. 10.1111/psyp.12803 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Shieldex® Zell—RS Conductive woven fabric for general use. In: V Technical Textiles, Inc [Internet]. [cited 18 Jun 2019]. Available: https://www.shieldextrading.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/1500101130-Zell-RS.pdf
  • 38.Ogorevc J, Geršak G, Novak D, Drnovšek J. Metrological evaluation of skin conductance measurements. Meas J Int Meas Confed. 2013;46: 2993–3001. 10.1016/j.measurement.2013.06.024 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Savić M, Geršak G. Metrological traceability of a system for measuring electrodermal activity. Measurement. 2015;59: 192–197. 10.1016/j.measurement.2014.09.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kleckner IR, Feldman M, Goodwin M, Quigley KS. Framework for Benchmarking Mobile Sensors in Psychophysiological Research. PsyArXiv. 2019;April 2 10.31234/osf.io/a9ju4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Geršak V, Smrtnik H, Prosen S, Starc G, Humar I, Geršak G. Use of wearable devices to study activity of children in classroom; Case study—Learning geometry using movement. Comput Commun. 2020;150: 581–588. 10.1016/j.comcom.2019.12.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Dominic Micklewright

22 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-26536

Electrodermal activity patient simulator

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Geršak,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 06 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dominic Micklewright, PhD CPsychol PFHEA FBASES FACSM

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 9 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors present a device to simulate electrodermal activity (EDA) data, which is widely used in psychology, neuroscience, economics, and other fields of scientific inquiry. The EDA simulator is timely given the recent increase in the number of EDA recording devices, which often have unknown performance and quality and are often not subject to independent validation studies. The authors describe development of an electrical circuit to simulate the EDA signal and they provide examples of recorded data. They stress that the EDA simulator can only supplement existing tests of EDA device performance on live human subjects, and is not a replacement for human subjects research.

Overall, I am very excited about this manuscript. I think it is interesting and timely and could be very useful for many researchers using EDA. My questions and concerns relate to the device’s precision and how researchers can use this in the real world. Is this device for sale? Or are the authors providing instructions for how other researchers can build this?

Specific major concerns/questions:

• I would like to see more clear metrics (e.g., a table) of the stability of this EDA simulator device: what is the precision in uS and in seconds for the device to deliver what should be an identical time course of SCL vs. Time. For example, if you program the device to deliver a stable baseline for 1 min, followed by 5 SCRs/min for 1 min, then 10 SCRs/min for 1 min, then 20 SCRs/min for 1 min, then another stable baseline for 1 min…and then repeat that 10 times, how consistently does it deliver that time course? How consistently does it deliver the SCRs in time? And how consistent are the SCR amplitudes? I am hoping the device is much more precise that we would require of an EDA measurement device, otherwise it would not be possible to test whether the EDA measurement device performs sufficiently.

• Is there a difference in measurement depending on where you place the EDA electrodes on the EDA simulator’s fingers? Or is the conductance uniform throughout? Is this easy for a user to figure out where to place the electrodes?

• There is a growing popularity in wrist-based EDA recording devices, and these are precisely the devices that are in need of being tested for validation. By comparison, most of the EDA devices that can measure from the finger tips are research-grade devices which are presumably less suspect and less in need of testing for validation. Would the proposed finger-based EDA simulator be able to work with those devices as well? Perhaps a wrist-based EDA simulator can be prepared or this can be suggested for future work?

• Correct me if this is wrong, but I envision using this device with multiple candidate EDA recording devices connected simultaneously to the EDA simulator and then comparing the recorded data from those devices. I would compare each recorded dataset to that generated from the EDA simulator and then compare the devices to each other. Is that correct? If so, how many EDA recording devices can be used at once? Will this interfere with the simulations? If not, then it is even more important to quantify the limits of the EDA simulator (per my first question/concern) because the EDA devices would then have to be tested one at a time, presumably against a standard simulated EDA time course.

Other/minor questions and concerns

• Introduction

• In general, please avoid suggesting that there is a one to one mapping between EDA (or any physiological response) and psychological state, as there is no evidence for this except possibly for very constrained and artificial experimental contexts. As the authors point out there are many other factors that also influence EDA, and there are many other factors that also influence psychological states independent of EDA. For more information, see https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-10678-012

• Examples in the paper (not an exhaustive list)—“When a person is psychological aroused, excited or activated, his/her EDA signal increases”

• I understand this is a somewhat theoretical point that is not central to the development of an EDA simulator, but nevertheless I think the research on EDA should be described more accurately

• Please define ICT

• 1-2 kHz seems way oversampled for EDA—I am not aware of any studies using 2 kHz. Often EDA data are downsampled to something more manageable such as 64 Hz or 128 Hz without significant loss of information, because the signal changes in SCRs and SCL are relatively slow

• Fig 10—seems like the labels for 5/min and 20/min are swapped

Discussion

• Several other papers acknowledge the importance of the measuring EDA and the device quality, please also cite, e.g., https://psyarxiv.com/a9ju4/, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7508621,

• The authors write—“Using extensive tests of different EDA devices (dry stainless steel and gold electrodes, clamp dry electrodes, wet Ag/AgCl electrodes, continuous and intermittent measurements) the built EDA simulator was proven to represent a reliable apparatus for quick tests and even thorough evaluations of any EDA device”—but readers do not get to see any of these data systematically. I would like to see data from the EDA simulator plus the recorded values from the EDA device overlaid or in subplots.

Reviewer #2: The authors present an electrodermal activity simulator that can be used to calibrate a wide variety of standard electrodermal recording devices. In general, I believe that the concept is sound, that the developed device is likely to be effective, and that a somewhat appropriate evaluation has been carried out. However, I have multiple concerns with the work, and thus recommend a major revision. Specific comments below.

MAJOR ISSUES

1. The evaluation of the developed device (section 3) is described in a haphazard fashion, with no systematic description of the protocol or even a description of specific EDA devices. The authors state that they performed static and dynamic evaluation of "an EDA device", but it is unclear what device was used. They then state that "they tested a number of different EDA devices and the errors and uncertainties were below 0.1 us and 0.3 us". However, they again do not state what these "different EDA devices" were, and do not give specific results. The same issue occurs slightly later (line 276), where the authors mention an EDA device with an automated SCR detection algorithm, but again do not state what device was used.

2. In a critical statement (lines 239-241), authors state that "a simplified signal like the one on Fig. 8 was proven suitable for the purpose of testing", but there is no evidence to back up this statement. This is a major issue, as the authors repeatedly acknowledge the weaknesses of the generated waveforms (which look very nonphysiological), but appear to dismiss the concern with this unsupported statement.

3. It is unclear why light-controlled resistance was used even though this is a major component of the work. On line 197, authors state "elegant fulfillment of the safety and electrical strength requirement and general simplicity of use", but it is not clear (at least to me) why a simple voltage-controlled resistor could not be used more easily. Please clarify in more detail.

4. The abstract is, in my opinion, inappropriate. Over half of it is just a background description, and essentially no methods or results are presented.

5. Many statements are not supported by reference. For example, lines 98-101 define SCL and SCR but no reference is given for this definition.

MINOR ISSUES

1. The quality of English could be improved, and I recommend professional editing.

2. Please do not use acronyms without introducing them (e.g., "ICT" on line 67, "EDS" on line 146).

3. Please do not use acronyms in figure captions unless they are defined in the caption itself (e.g., "EDA" in Fig. 3).

4. Line 219: Authors say "SCL level", which would expand to "skin conductance level level".

5. The authors do not clearly state whether any other EDA patient simulators exist.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Feb 5;15(2):e0228949. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228949.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-26536

Electrodermal activity patient simulator

PLOS ONE

Dear Prof Micklewright,

Hereby I am attaching our responses to reviewers’ comments and concerns. The rest of this document is colour coded as following: Black text – reviewers’ comments, Blue text – author’s reply, Red text – changes in the paper.

Thank you for your and the reviewers’ valuable comments and thank you for your consideration.

Best wishes,

Gregor Geršak

Dear Dr Geršak,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 06 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dominic Micklewright, PhD CPsychol PFHEA FBASES FACSM

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Editor's comment:

1. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 9 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Thank you for your comment. The text was corrected accordingly and references added.

Using the simulator’s built-in precision 100 kΩ resistor (equals 10 uS) a static calibration of EDA device was performed (Fig 9).

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: The authors present a device to simulate electrodermal activity (EDA) data, which is widely used in psychology, neuroscience, economics, and other fields of scientific inquiry. The EDA simulator is timely given the recent increase in the number of EDA recording devices, which often have unknown performance and quality and are often not subject to independent validation studies. The authors describe development of an electrical circuit to simulate the EDA signal and they provide examples of recorded data. They stress that the EDA simulator can only supplement existing tests of EDA device performance on live human subjects, and is not a replacement for human subjects research.

Overall, I am very excited about this manuscript. I think it is interesting and timely and could be very useful for many researchers using EDA. My questions and concerns relate to the device’s precision and how researchers can use this in the real world. Is this device for sale? Or are the authors providing instructions for how other researchers can build this?

Using the EDA for a number of years and at the same time being a metrology laboratory, concerned about terms such as accuracy, error and uncertainty we are well aware of the practical limitations of nowadays EDA measuring devices. The goal of our paper was to present a concept of patient simulator and explain one of possible solutions (i.e. instructions for building a simulator).

Specific major concerns/questions:

• I would like to see more clear metrics (e.g., a table) of the stability of this EDA simulator device: what is the precision in uS and in seconds for the device to deliver what should be an identical time course of SCL vs. Time. For example, if you program the device to deliver a stable baseline for 1 min, followed by 5 SCRs/min for 1 min, then 10 SCRs/min for 1 min, then 20 SCRs/min for 1 min, then another stable baseline for 1 min…and then repeat that 10 times, how consistently does it deliver that time course? How consistently does it deliver the SCRs in time? And how consistent are the SCR amplitudes? I am hoping the device is much more precise that we would require of an EDA measurement device, otherwise it would not be possible to test whether the EDA measurement device performs sufficiently.

Thank you for your comment. We performed additional tests of the stability of the level of SC within static tests (with two fixed resistors), amplitude and frequency of pre-set SCR peaks. We included an additional table with data describing the stability of the built simulator.

Table 1 contains the performance of the EDA simulator regarding stability. If we define a target uncertainty for a common EDA measuring device of approx. 0.1 uS, the results show, that the built simulator is adequately stable to reliably check common EDA measuring devices.

Table 1. Stability of the EDA simulator output (all values in uS and measured within a 10 min interval).

Simulator settings Average value Standard deviation

frequency 5/min 4.93 0.091

frequency 10/min 9.94 0.082

frequency 20/min 19.96 0.080

SCL (fixed resistor 10 uS) 9.99 0.001

SCL (fixed resistor 4.5 uS) 4.53 0.001

small SCR amplitude (uS) 0.26 0.005

large SCR amplitude (uS) 0.45 0.005

• Is there a difference in measurement depending on where you place the EDA electrodes on the EDA simulator’s fingers? Or is the conductance uniform throughout? Is this easy for a user to figure out where to place the electrodes?

We performed some additional measurements to find the sensitivity of the measured EDA value versus the electrode position on the simulator’s fingers. The differences in values (at constant SC conditions) were under 1 uS in the time span of several minutes (i.e. 10 min).

• There is a growing popularity in wrist-based EDA recording devices, and these are precisely the devices that are in need of being tested for validation. By comparison, most of the EDA devices that can measure from the finger tips are research-grade devices which are presumably less suspect and less in need of testing for validation. Would the proposed finger-based EDA simulator be able to work with those devices as well? Perhaps a wrist-based EDA simulator can be prepared or this can be suggested for future work?

Thank you for your comment and a valuable observation. Indeed, the majority of “suspicious” EDA devices are wrist devices. In the first version of the paper, we stated “One of the identified physical limitations is also inability to test wrist-worn EDA devices due to the present configuration of the simulator (designed for finger electrodes only).”, but meanwhile we realised this and corrected the text. The simulator actually does offer a possibility of testing wrist-worn devices, because it has built-in multipurpose output terminals (connectors), which can be connected to the device’s embedded electrodes by simple leads.

We added additional explanation.

Such a set-up is appropriate for testing EDA devices for measuring skin conductance using two electrodes, e.g. on two fingers. On the other hand, a number of different (usually low-cost) EDA devices measuring skin conductance on the user’s wrists are used today. To test these, the simulator has built-in EDA terminals, which can be connected to the device’s electrodes by simple leads.

• Correct me if this is wrong, but I envision using this device with multiple candidate EDA recording devices connected simultaneously to the EDA simulator and then comparing the recorded data from those devices. I would compare each recorded dataset to that generated from the EDA simulator and then compare the devices to each other. Is that correct? If so, how many EDA recording devices can be used at once? Will this interfere with the simulations? If not, then it is even more important to quantify the limits of the EDA simulator (per my first question/concern) because the EDA devices would then have to be tested one at a time, presumably against a standard simulated EDA time course.

Thank you for your comment. You are absolutely right. If the simulator would be capable of testing several devices simultaneously this would indeed be a very useful feature for fast check of numerous devices (e.g. for experiments in education, where around 30 devices are worn by the pupils and they all need a check – see reference below). In fact, our simulator was not capable of providing stable resistance values for two or more EDA devices, since the current they are feeding to the simulator’s fingers interfered with each other and partly with the simulators circuit. [1]). Appropriate text was added.

1. Geršak, V.; Smrtnik, H.; Prosen, S.; Starc, G.; Humar, I.; Geršak, G. Use of wearable devices to study activity of children in classroom ; Case study — Learning geometry using movement. Comput. Commun. 2020, 150, 581–588.

A very useful feature of the EDA simulator would be capability of testing several devices simultaneously. This would allow for a fast check of numerous devices (e.g. for experiments in education, where around 30 devices are worn by the pupils and they all need to be checked periodically). The current simulator design is not capable of providing stable resistance values for two or more EDA devices, since the current they are feeding to the simulator’s fingers interfered with each other measuring function and the simulator itself.

Other/minor questions and concerns

• Introduction

• In general, please avoid suggesting that there is a one to one mapping between EDA (or any physiological response) and psychological state, as there is no evidence for this except possibly for very constrained and artificial experimental contexts. As the authors point out there are many other factors that also influence EDA, and there are many other factors that also influence psychological states independent of EDA. For more information, see https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-10678-012

• Examples in the paper (not an exhaustive list)—“When a person is psychological aroused, excited or activated, his/her EDA signal increases”

• I understand this is a somewhat theoretical point that is not central to the development of an EDA simulator, but nevertheless I think the research on EDA should be described more accurately

Thank you for the comment. The reference was added.

Nowadays, the most common assumption is that when a person is psychologically aroused, excited or activated, hers/his EDA signal increases [1–3], although there are also other opinions [4].

• Please define ICT

ICT stands for information and communications technology. The explanation was added.

EDA was used also in ICT (information and communications technology) and entertainment [20–24], education [25,26] and food industry research [27,28].

• 1-2 kHz seems way oversampled for EDA—I am not aware of any studies using 2 kHz. Often EDA data are downsampled to something more manageable such as 64 Hz or 128 Hz without significant loss of information, because the signal changes in SCRs and SCL are relatively slow

We do not agree. Although the skin conductance is a relatively slow physiological signal, the post-festum signal processing is not entirely immune to the sampling rate. In out experiments we use 1 kHz (which might be (too) high, but nowadays research devices have no problem with it)), because we realised that SCR content (the number of SCR) could be compromised if under-sampled (e.g. some wearables offer maximal 32 Hz sampling rate which is not always adequate for a precise and robust SCR analysis). Similar suggestions on sampling frequency can be found also in Figner et al. Using skin conductance in judgment and decision making research, 2011 and in Braithwaite et al. A Guide for Analysing Electrodermal Activity (EDA) & Skin Conductance Responses (SCRs) for Psychological Experiments, 2013.

• Fig 10—seems like the labels for 5/min and 20/min are swapped

Thank you for the comment. The figure was corrected.

Discussion

• Several other papers acknowledge the importance of the measuring EDA and the device quality, please also cite, e.g., https://psyarxiv.com/a9ju4/, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7508621, • The authors write—“Using extensive tests of different EDA devices (dry stainless steel and gold electrodes, clamp dry electrodes, wet Ag/AgCl electrodes, continuous and intermittent measurements) the built EDA simulator was proven to represent a reliable apparatus for quick tests and even thorough evaluations of any EDA device”—but readers do not get to see any of these data systematically. I would like to see data from the EDA simulator plus the recorded values from the EDA device overlaid or in subplots.

Thank you for the interesting reference. The text was changed - the reference added.

But it is never seriously doubted, in the sense of determining measuring accuracy and quality of measuring result like in [38–40].

Using the built EDA simulator for testing different types of EDA devices (low-cost and research-grade, with dry stainless-steel and golden electrodes, clamp dry electrodes, wet Ag/AgCl electrodes, continuous and intermittent, desktop and portable), it can be concluded that the simulator represents a reliable apparatus for quick tests of EDA devices.

Reviewer #2: The authors present an electrodermal activity simulator that can be used to calibrate a wide variety of standard electrodermal recording devices. In general, I believe that the concept is sound, that the developed device is likely to be effective, and that a somewhat appropriate evaluation has been carried out. However, I have multiple concerns with the work, and thus recommend a major revision. Specific comments below.

MAJOR ISSUES

1. The evaluation of the developed device (section 3) is described in a haphazard fashion, with no systematic description of the protocol or even a description of specific EDA devices. The authors state that they performed static and dynamic evaluation of "an EDA device", but it is unclear what device was used.

They then state that "they tested a number of different EDA devices and the errors and uncertainties were below 0.1 us and 0.3 us". However, they again do not state what these "different EDA devices" were, and do not give specific results. The same issue occurs slightly later (line 276), where the authors mention an EDA device with an automated SCR detection algorithm, but again do not state what device was used.

Thank you for your comment. It is the authors’ opinion that the brand and model name would not give any additional information to the reader (and would represent just an advertising for them). The EDA devices used were a Sensewear device, a Shimmer device, a Biopac device, a g.Tec device and a couple of self-made (and extensively tested and used) devices. We do acknowledge that the device quality is important; therefore, we added the price range for the EDA devices.

Using the simulator’s built-in precision 100 kΩ resistor (equals 10 uS) a static calibration of a low-cost (under 100 EUR) EDA device was performed (Fig 9).

In addition to static calibration, dynamic evaluation of the low-cost EDA device was performed.

2. In a critical statement (lines 239-241), authors state that "a simplified signal like the one on Fig. 8 was proven suitable for the purpose of testing", but there is no evidence to back up this statement. This is a major issue, as the authors repeatedly acknowledge the weaknesses of the generated waveforms (which look very nonphysiological), but appear to dismiss the concern with this unsupported statement.

The reviewer is right. Our initial statement was very strong. Namely, the fact is, we only performed a limited number of checks within an EDA device test. We changed the text and the statement is now written in a weaker fashion. The reason comes from our experience (we actually did perform a number of tests of very different EDA devices), which in part come from the research area of blood pressure patient simulators, where the same problems regarding the natural physiological versus simplified artificial output occur. For short and fast checks, the artificial signals were proven adequate. For comprehensive tests they are probably not entirely suitable. But the fact is, nobody has proven this empirically.

Although the simulator waveform looks symmetric and quite artificial, we consider a simplified signal like the one on Fig 8 (right) suitable for the purpose of testing the functionality and basic accuracy of EDA device. For more comprehensive evaluations, the physiology-based signals should be used.

3. It is unclear why light-controlled resistance was used even though this is a major component of the work. On line 197, authors state "elegant fulfillment of the safety and electrical strength requirement and general simplicity of use", but it is not clear (at least to me) why a simple voltage-controlled resistor could not be used more easily. Please clarify in more detail.

In the course of the simulator development, different types of variable resistors were tested (see line 189-195 on page 11), with the emphasis on digipot, programmable resistor, combination light diode-photoresistor and optocoupler. Using simple voltage-controlled resistors we could not reach the wide resistance range easily (for 1 uS to 30 uS we needed aprox. 33 kOhm do 1 MOhm range with resistance resolution of some 0.05 uS (i.e. 20 Mohm)). Therefore, a combination of perfect galvanic isolation, wide output resistance range, no need for microcontroller, ADC and sampling circuits resulted in choosing the optocoupler. Optocoupler really was the simplest, adequately linear solution.

4. The abstract is, in my opinion, inappropriate. Over half of it is just a background description, and essentially no methods or results are presented.

The abstract has been rewritten.

In this paper, we propose a concept of an EDA patient simulator - a device enabling metrological testing of EDA devices by means of a variable resistance. EDA simulator was designed based on a programmable light-controlled resistor with a wide resistance range, capable of simulating skin conductance levels (SCL) and responses (SCR) and was equipped with an artificial hand. The hand included electrically conductive fingers for attachment of EDA device electrodes. A minimal set of tests for evaluating an EDA device was identified, the simulator’s functionality discussed and some testing results presented.

5. Many statements are not supported by reference. For example, lines 98-101 define SCL and SCR but no reference is given for this definition.

Thanks for the comment. We checked the text and made changes.

Tonic, slowly changing part of the SC signal is named skin conductance level (SCL) [1]. Fast phasic pulses are called electrodermal responses, or skin conductance responses (SCR) [1].

As a rule-of-a-thumb, values of a couple of SCR per minute indicate the subject is in relaxed state (baseline) and values above 20 SCR/min indicate an aroused subject [1,34].

MINOR ISSUES

1. The quality of English could be improved, and I recommend professional editing.

2. Please do not use acronyms without introducing them (e.g., "ICT" on line 67, "EDS" on line 146).

Thanks for the comment. The explanation was added.

EDA was used also in ICT (information and communications technology) and entertainment [20–24], education [25,26] and food industry research [27,28].

Typical acquired raw EDA signal is shown in Fig 3.

3. Please do not use acronyms in figure captions unless they are defined in the caption itself (e.g., "EDA" in Fig. 3).

Thanks for the comment. The text was corrected.

Fig 3. Typical raw skin conductance (or EDA) signal (solid line) of a participant during a mental task (dashed line).

4. Line 219: Authors say "SCL level", which would expand to "skin conductance level level".

Thanks for the comment. The text was corrected.

The SCL and SCR amplitudes were set digitally using digital-to-analog output of the Arduino board.

Different levels of static EDA signal can be set (i.e. different SCL).

5. The authors do not clearly state whether any other EDA patient simulators exist.

We have not come across not even an EDA simulator’s concept, yet alone another EDA simulator. In line 315 on page 18 it was stated “In this paper a concept of an EDA simulator for testing EDA devices is, to the best of our knowledge, presented for the first time.«

In this paper a concept of an EDA simulator for testing EDA devices is, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, presented for the first time.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Dominic Micklewright

28 Jan 2020

Electrodermal activity patient simulator

PONE-D-19-26536R1

Dear Dr. Geršak,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Dominic Micklewright, PhD CPsychol PFHEA FBASES FACSM

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Dominic Micklewright

29 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-26536R1

Electrodermal activity patient simulator

Dear Dr. Geršak:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Dominic Micklewright

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All data files are available from the Figshare database (DOI no. 10.6084/m9.figshare.11551224).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES