arXiv preprint ·

Artifact removal improves electrodermal waveforms but not downstream classification in a virtual-reality balance task

Haochen Chai, Qixu Zhu, Siyao Li and Fangfang Jiang

Published
Source
arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
Original
Read it at arXiv
Topics
Human-Computer InteractionMachine LearningSignal Processing

Abstract

Artifact removal routinely precedes the classification of electrodermal activity (EDA), on the assumption that a cleaner signal supports a better decision. We tested this assumption in a virtual-reality (VR) balance-disturbance task. A residual gating network was trained on a benchmark with expert-corrected EDA, frozen, and applied to VR recordings, where raw and gated signals were classified by five published time-series methods under identical leave-one-participant-out evaluation. On the benchmark the gate detected artifacts well (median record AUROC 0.94) and reduced error inside artifact regions by 17.8%. In the VR task it did not improve classification. Changes in balanced accuracy ranged from -1.35 to +0.93 percentage points, no classifier improved and two lost accuracy, and all five were equivalent to raw input within +/- 3.32 points. The benefit was lost between waveform and decision. The correction that lowered waveform error also reduced skin conductance response detection in all 43 benchmark records. Processing left 92.8% of predictions unchanged, and the predictions it did change were corrected and corrupted at similar rates. The VR recordings also carried little contamination (an estimated 4.6% of samples), and even perfect localization of deliberately injected artifacts recovered only 3.3 points in the most sensitive classifier. A pooled association between artifact level and accuracy (11.3 points) disappeared within participants (0.1 points), showing how differences between people can make cleaning look useful. Preprocessing should be judged by the decision it supports, against an unprocessed arm.

The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.

Read it on ReadSearch

Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.

Already a reader? Sign in

All new papers in Human-Computer Interaction

Get the few papers worth your time in Human-Computer Interaction every morning.

ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.

Papers belong to their authors and publishers; every page here links to the original. All research topics