Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 52 references

A Low-Power Wearable Respiratory Sensor for Non-Invasive Stress Monitoring

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A low-power abdominal belt sensor can separate stress from rest by breathing alone, the paper claims.

desk verdict A solid engineering report on a low-cost FSR respiratory belt, with a stress-classification experiment whose headline accuracy is inflated by feature-selection leakage and segment-level splits. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05697 v1 pith:7O2AOG6H submitted 2026-08-06 q-bio.QM cs.LGeess.SP

Mohammad Hosseini , Hamed Khatounabadi , Mohammad Fakharzadeh This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.QMcs.LGeess.SP
keywords force-sensitiveresistorwearablerespiratorymonitoringstressclassificationBluetoothLowEnergytime-domainfeaturesaffectivecomputingMentalarithmeticandStroopinduction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that a small, low-power abdominal belt with a force-sensitive resistor can deliver a usable respiratory signal across postures, and that respiratory features from that signal can separate stressed from relaxed phases. The authors build a complete device—FSR, mechanical holder, custom BLE board, rechargeable battery—and validate it on controlled breathing maneuvers and light movement. In a 12-participant stress experiment, the best model reaches 88.0% test accuracy in distinguishing relaxation from stress-induction phases, which the paper reads as evidence that a single respiration channel carries task-related physiological information. If true, it would make continuous non-invasive stress monitoring feasible with a cheap, comfortable, low-power wearable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the force-sensitive resistor (FSR) read by a voltage divider: $V_{out} = V_{dd} R_L/(R_{FSR}+R_L)$, so inhalation increases pressure, lowers $R_{FSR}$, and raises the ADC voltage without an amplifier. A flexible holder with a central button transfers abdominal expansion to the sensor, and an nRF52832-based BLE board digitizes and transmits the waveform. The stress-decoding claim is carried by 28 time-domain features reduced to six by Fisher's criterion, which ranks each feature by the ratio of between-class to within-class variance, and these features are fed to standard classifiers under six-fold cross-validation.

What would settle it

Run leave-one-participant-out cross-validation, repeating Fisher feature selection inside each training fold; if accuracy on held-out participants falls to chance, the reported 88.0% is an artifact of segment overlap rather than a general respiratory marker of stress.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a piezoresistive readout with no analog amplification, combined with a mechanical holder that concentrates abdominal expansion onto the FSR, produces a respiratory waveform large enough to support downstream classification. The paper reports that in stationary postures and light walking the filtered waveform preserves recurring peak-valley structure, and that six interpretable time-domain features—chief among them variance of expiratory slope—distinguish rest from stress-induction phases with 88.0% test accuracy in the pilot dataset. This result is presented as preliminary evidence for the feasibility of respiration-only stress decoding, not as a demonstrated generalizable biomarker.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 60 segments from 12 participants can be treated as independent samples for training and testing, even though features are selected on the full dataset and segments from the same participant may appear in both training and test folds; if that premise fails, the 88.0% test accuracy does not generalize beyond this dataset.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The device can measure respiratory rate and intensity across sitting, lying, standing, and light walking with a single low-cost FSR channel.
  • The passive readout and regulated 1.8 V supply keep power consumption low, since the FSR's high unloaded resistance reduces divider current during standby.
  • Features such as variance of expiratory slope differentiate stress-induction phases from relaxation phases within the recorded protocol.
  • The system supports real-time BLE streaming at about 7.31 kbps, enough for continuous respiratory monitoring outside the lab.
  • The paper concludes that combining respiration with electrodermal activity, ECG/HRV, and motion sensing is the more promising route to robust stress inference, positioning this single-channel result as a building block.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because participants spoke during the arithmetic and Stroop blocks, part of the reported discrimination may reflect speech-driven breathing changes rather than stress per se; a silent stress task would separate these factors.
  • If leave-one-participant-out validation holds, a single FSR channel could serve as a low-cost, low-power screening signal for longitudinal stress studies without chest straps or multiple sensors.
  • The same voltage-divider readout could be repurposed for other slow mechanical signals such as posture shifts or gait cadence with only a change of holder geometry.
  • A placement-sweep study could estimate how much of the 88.0% accuracy transfers across sensor positions, since the paper notes that attachment pressure and placement set the operating point and can produce baseline shifts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a compact, low-power wearable respiratory sensor based on a force-sensitive resistor (FSR) in an abdominal belt with a custom Bluetooth Low Energy acquisition board and no analog amplification. The authors report qualitative waveform validation across breathing modes and body positions (sitting, lying, standing, walking) and a preliminary stress-induction experiment with 12 participants, 60 labeled segments, 28 time-domain features, Fisher-based feature selection, and six-fold cross-validation of five classifiers, with a reported best test accuracy of 88.0%.

Significance. If the hardware claims are correct, the device is a low-cost, low-complexity respiratory channel with a plausible path to continuous monitoring, and the paper gives a reasonably complete account of the mechanical and electronic design. The stress-classification result, however, is the central evidence for the affective-computing claim, and that result is currently undermined by a circular feature-selection evaluation and by the confounding of stress phases with speaking. The paper itself acknowledges several of these limitations (Section 5), which is a strength, but the abstract and introduction do not carry the necessary caveats. The hardware validation is qualitative and would benefit from quantitative comparison to a reference method.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.5.5–3.5.6, Table 2] The six features are selected using Fisher's criterion on all 60 labeled segments before the six-fold cross-validation is performed. This means the test folds have already influenced feature selection, so the reported 88.0% test accuracy (and the 82.4% average) is an optimistic, leakage-contaminated estimate. The abstract's claim that the features 'distinguish stress-induced phases from relaxation phases' is not supported by this evaluation. A nested cross-validation procedure, or feature selection performed only within each training fold, is required.
  2. [§3.5.4, §3.5.6] The six-fold cross-validation splits the 60 segments, not the 12 participants. With five segments per participant, random folds will almost certainly place segments from the same participant in both training and test sets, allowing the classifier to exploit participant-specific baseline, belt tension, or placement effects rather than the rest/stress contrast. The reported accuracy therefore cannot be interpreted as subject-independent performance. Grouped or participant-independent folds should be used, and per-participant variability should be reported.
  3. [§4.2.1, §3.5.3] As the paper itself notes in Section 4.2.1, participants speak during the mental-arithmetic and SCWT phases but not during rest phases, and speech directly alters respiratory timing and waveform shape. Consequently, even a methodologically clean binary classifier would likely discriminate task phases (speaking vs. silent) rather than stress per se. The abstract's phrasing 'distinguish stress-induced phases from relaxation phases' is therefore an overstatement. A speech-matched control condition, or an explicit analysis of speech confounds, is needed before the result can be attributed to stress induction.
  4. [§4.1, §3.4.3, Appendix F] The hardware validation is qualitative: waveform inspection for a single subject per posture, with no comparison to a reference respiratory measurement (e.g., respiratory inductance plethysmography or a spirometer) and no quantitative breath-by-breath accuracy metrics. Appendix F additionally shows conditions where motion and placement dominate the signal. The abstract's claim that the platform 'enables real-time respiratory monitoring across diverse daily-life scenarios' is broader than the evidence supports. Quantitative agreement statistics across subjects, sessions, and sensor placements would be needed to substantiate that claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract reports the 88.0% test accuracy without noting that it comes from a segment-level evaluation with known limitations; even the Introduction qualifies this as 'under the original segment-level evaluation.' The abstract should carry the same caveat or refer the reader to the limitation.
  2. [Figure 7] The four panels are not individually labeled with the corresponding posture (sitting, lying, standing, walking), making it hard to map the qualitative claims in the text to the displayed traces.
  3. [Table 2] The abbreviations 'spec.' and 'sens.' are not defined in the table caption; adding 'specificity' and 'sensitivity' would improve readability.
  4. [Section 4.2.2] The cold pressor test description reports a '20%' amplitude increase but does not state over how many subjects or sessions this was measured; please clarify the basis of this number.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Feature selection on all 60 labeled segments before six-fold cross-validation makes the headline 88.0% 'test accuracy' a leakage-prone, partially in-sample evaluation rather than an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.5.5 (Feature Extraction), Section 3.5.6 (Classification Setup), Table 2, and the abstract's '88.0% test accuracy' claim]
    "For model training, six features were selected using Fisher’s criterion [14] because they provided the strongest separation between stress and rest classes... The models were evaluated using six-fold cross-validation over the 60 labeled segments. In each fold, 50 samples were used for training and 10 samples were used for testing."

    The Fisher feature selector is applied to all 60 labeled segments before any train/test split, so the six features scored in each 'test' fold were chosen with knowledge of that fold's labels. The reported 88.0% test accuracy is therefore not an out-of-sample estimate of a pre-selected feature set; it evaluates a feature set fitted on the full data. Because folds are drawn from 12 participants' five segments without participant separation, same-participant segments can appear in both training and test, further correlating the estimate. The paper itself concedes the limitation in Section 5, calling 'the original segment-level evaluation is limited' and requesting 'held-out-participant evaluation'.

full rationale

The sensing and hardware derivation is self-contained: Eq. (1) is a passive voltage divider, the FSR resistance-pressure mapping is from an external datasheet, and the posture/motion results are direct empirical checks independent of the classification model. The circularity is confined to the stress-decoding claim. In Section 3.5.5, six features are selected by Fisher's criterion over all 60 segments; Section 3.5.6 then cross-validates classifiers on the same 60 segments. Because feature selection uses test-fold labels before any split, the abstract's statement that the 88.0% accuracy is 'indicating that the extracted respiratory features distinguish stress-induced phases from relaxation phases in this dataset' is supported by an evaluation loop: the feature set already incorporated all labels. Section 5 explicitly flags this ('the original segment-level evaluation is limited') and asks for held-out-participant evaluation, and Section 4.2.1 acknowledges that participants speak during stress tasks, so phase differences also reflect task behavior. The introduction's self-citations ([20], [21], [35]) are not load-bearing for the sensor or the classification result. Overall, the hardware claim remains independent, but the headline classification result is partially circular due to full-data feature selection, justifying a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on multiple design choices and data-dependent selections. The most consequential is the Fisher-based feature subset chosen from the full dataset, which affects the stress classification. Additional hardware and protocol settings are reasonable but undocumented in enough detail to reproduce exactly. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Fisher-selected feature subset = variance of valley intervals; max peak-to-valley interval; variance of inspiratory time; mean expiratory volume…
    The six features chosen from 28 using Fisher's criterion on the full dataset directly determine the classification result and are the main driver of the reported accuracy.
  • Load resistor RL = 10 kOhm
    Sets the voltage-divider operating point and output swing (Section 3.1); an implementation choice.
  • FIR low-pass cutoff = 2 Hz
    Signal-processing choice to isolate the respiratory band (Section 3.4.3); affects how much motion artifact remains.
  • Neural network hidden units = 20
    Chosen for the best-performing model (Section 3.5.6); hyperparameter not tuned or justified.
  • ADC sampling rate and oversampling factor = 428 Hz, factor 8
    Acquisition settings (Section 3.4.3) that determine time resolution and noise.
  • BLE packet interval = 17.5 ms
    Transmission setting (Section 3.4.3) that sets data rate and latency.
  • Phase durations = Rest 4 min; tasks 2 to 3 min; recovery 3 min
    Protocol design (Table 1) that defines the segment lengths and class balance.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption FSR resistance decreases monotonically with applied pressure (manufacturer datasheet).
    Relied on in Section 3.1 to justify the voltage-divider readout and the claimed inverse relationship between pressure and resistance.
  • domain assumption Abdominal expansion during inhalation increases pressure on the FSR through the holder.
    Core mechanical assumption in Section 3.2; if the holder does not reliably convert abdominal movement into pressure, the voltage signal would not track respiration.
  • domain assumption The 2 Hz low-pass filter preserves respiratory frequencies while removing motion noise.
    Used in Section 3.4.3; assumes most respiratory rates remain below 2 Hz, which may fail during fast breathing.
  • domain assumption Stroop and mental arithmetic tasks induce stress as established in prior literature.
    Basis for assigning stress-induction labels in Section 3.5.3; no physiological verification per participant is reported.
  • domain assumption The 60 segments are independent samples for cross-validation.
    Assumed implicitly in Section 3.5.6; segments from the same participant over time are likely correlated, and same-participant leakage could inflate accuracy.
  • domain assumption Peak and valley detection algorithm correctly identifies breaths in all phases.
    Required for the 28 features in Section 3.5.5; the detection method is not described or validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Low-Power Wearable Respiratory Sensor for Non-Invasive Stress Monitoring." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7O2AOG6H

@misc{pith2026260805697,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Low-Power Wearable Respiratory Sensor for Non-Invasive Stress Monitoring},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7O2AOG6H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05697}
}
read the original abstract

Respiration provides a continuously available window into physiological state and behavior. However, monitoring it outside controlled settings remains challenging because a wearable system must capture small body deformations while remaining comfortable, low power, and robust to changes in posture and motion. We present a compact non-invasive respiratory sensing system based on a force-sensitive resistor (FSR) embedded in an abdominal belt and integrated with a custom Bluetooth Low Energy acquisition board. The system combines a simple piezoresistive readout with a mechanical holder designed to transfer abdominal expansion to the sensor without analog amplification. We evaluate the complete sensing pipeline across multiple breathing patterns and body positions. In stationary settings, the recorded signals exhibit consistent amplitude changes and recurring peak-to-peak timing across breathing maneuvers; under light movement, these variations remain visible despite motion-induced baseline shifts. We further design a five-phase stress-induction protocol and collect respiratory recordings from 12 participants. Using interpretable time-domain features and standard classifiers, we examine whether the acquired signals distinguish relaxation from stress-induction phases. In this preliminary experiment, the best-performing model achieves 88.0% test accuracy, indicating that the extracted respiratory features distinguish stress-induced phases from relaxation phases in this dataset. Overall, our results show that the proposed platform enables real-time respiratory monitoring across diverse daily-life scenarios and captures respiratory changes that distinguish stress-induction from relaxation phases, supporting its potential for affective-computing applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05697 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Initial prototype used for validating the FSR sensing concept before custom PCB fabrication. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Respiration phases used to reason about pressure transfer: exhalation and inhalation change [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic of the designed electronic system, including the MCU, power-management [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Layout of the designed PCB. Compact placement and polygon planes reduce footprint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Assembled respiratory-sensing electronics. The final board is compact enough for wearable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Final wearable holder and placement. The enclosure protects the electronics, the central [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Respiratory recordings across posture and light-motion conditions. Each panel shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Respiratory signal from one participant across the five stages of the stress experiment: first [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cold pressor test: baseline rest and hand immersion in ice water. This task was explored as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Representative prototype waveforms for normal breathing, breath holding, fast breathing, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Examples of motion-induced baseline shifts and running artifacts from the validation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F. Q. Al-Khalidi, R. Saatchi, D. Burke, H. Elphick, and S. Tan. Respiration rate monitoring methods: A review.Pediatric Pulmonology, 46(6):523–529, 2011. doi: 10.1002/ppul.21416

    work page doi:10.1002/ppul.21416 2011

  2. [2]

    Frans A. Boiten. The effects of emotional behaviour on components of the respiratory cycle. Biological Psychology, 49(1–2):29–51, 1998. doi: 10.1016/S0301-0511(98)00025-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0301-0511(98)00025-8 1998

  3. [3]

    Comparison of heart rate variability measures for mental stress detection.Computing in Cardiology, pages 85–88, 2011

    Sirikarn Boonnithi and Siriwan Phongsuphap. Comparison of heart rate variability measures for mental stress detection.Computing in Cardiology, pages 85–88, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Charlton, Drew A

    Peter H. Charlton, Drew A. Birrenkott, Timothy Bonnici, Marco A. F. Pimentel, Alistair E. W. Johnson, Jordi Alastruey, Lionel Tarassenko, Peter J. Watkinson, Richard Beale, and David A. Clifton. Breathing rate estimation from the electrocardiogram and photoplethysmogram: A review.IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, 11:2–20, 2018. doi: 10.1109/RBME.201...

    work page doi:10.1109/rbme.2017 2018

  5. [5]

    Machine-learning enabled wireless wearable sensors to study individuality of respiratory behaviors.Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 173:112799, 2021

    Ang Chen, Jianwei Zhang, Liangkai Zhao, Rachel Diane Rhoades, Dong-Yun Kim, Ning Wu, Jianming Liang, and Junseok Chae. Machine-learning enabled wireless wearable sensors to study individuality of respiratory behaviors.Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 173:112799, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2020.112799

    work page arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Youngjun Cho, Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze, and Simon J. Julier. Deepbreath: Deep learning of breathing patterns for automatic stress recognition using low-cost thermal imaging in uncon- strained settings.arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.06026, 2017. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1708.06026

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Using heart rate monitors to detect mental stress

    Jongyoon Choi and Ricardo Gutierrez-Osuna. Using heart rate monitors to detect mental stress. InSixth International Workshop on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks, pages 219–223, 2009. doi: 10.1109/BSN.2009.13

    work page doi:10.1109/bsn.2009.13 2009

  8. [8]

    Pham, Ronen Bar- Yoseph, Shlomit Radom-Aizik, Ramesh Jain, Dan M

    Michael Chu, Thao Nguyen, Vaibhav Pandey, Yongxiao Zhou, Hoang N. Pham, Ronen Bar- Yoseph, Shlomit Radom-Aizik, Ramesh Jain, Dan M. Cooper, and Michelle Khine. Respiration rate and volume measurements using wearable strain sensors.npj Digital Medicine, 2:8, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41746-019-0083-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41746-019-0083-3 2019

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Computational psychometrics using psychophysiological measures for the assessment of acute mental stress.Sensors, 19(4):781,

    Pietro Cipresso, Desirée Colombo, and Giuseppe Riva. Computational psychometrics using psychophysiological measures for the assessment of acute mental stress.Sensors, 19(4):781,

  2. [10]

    Shepley, Nicholas J

    Carter Comeau, Bhawya, Partha Sarati Das, Brooke R. Shepley, Nicholas J. Lester, Syed Anees, Anthony R. Bain, Simon Rondeau-Gagné, and Mohammed Jalal Ahamed. AI-enabled wireless wearable breathing sensor for breathing pattern recognition.Scientific Reports, 16:21380, 2026. doi...

    2026 doi

  3. [11]

    Conrad and P

    B. Conrad and P. Schönle. Speech and respiration.Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten, 226(4):251–268, 1979. doi: 10.1007/BF00342238

    1979 doi

  4. [12]

    Cretikos, Rinaldo Bellomo, Ken Hillman, Jack Chen, Simon Finfer, and Arthas Flabouris

    Michelle A. Cretikos, Rinaldo Bellomo, Ken Hillman, Jack Chen, Simon Finfer, and Arthas Flabouris. Respiratory rate: the neglected vital sign.The Medical Journal of Australia, 188(11): 657–659, 2008

    2008

  5. [13]

    J. F. Fieselmann, M. S. Hendryx, C. M. Helms, and D. S. Wakefield. Respiratory rate predicts cardiopulmonary arrest for internal medicine inpatients.Journal of General Internal Medicine, 8(7):354–360, 1993. doi: 10.1007/BF02600071

    1993 doi

  6. [14]

    Ronald A. Fisher. The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems.Annals of Eugenics, 7(2):179–188, 1936. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.1936.tb02137.x

    1936

  7. [15]

    Folke, L

    M. Folke, L. Cernerud, M. Ekström, and B. Hök. Critical review of non-invasive respiratory monitoring in medical care.Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, 41(4): 377–383, 2003. doi: 10.1007/BF02348078. 15

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    Continuous stress detection using a wrist device: In laboratory and real life

    Martin Gjoreski, Hristijan Gjoreski, Mitja Luštrek, and Matjaž Gams. Continuous stress detection using a wrist device: In laboratory and real life. InProceedings of the ACM In- ternational Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct, 2016. doi: 10.1145/2968...

    2016

  9. [17]

    Mittelstadt, and Omer Van den Bergh

    Mariel Grassmann, Elke Vlemincx, Andreas von Leupoldt, Justin M. Mittelstadt, and Omer Van den Bergh. Respiratory changes in response to cognitive load: A systematic review.Neural Plasticity, 2016:8146809, 2016. doi: 10.1155/2016/8146809

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Healey and Rosalind W

    Jennifer A. Healey and Rosalind W. Picard. Detecting stress during real-world driving tasks using physiological sensors.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 6(2): 156–166, 2005. doi: 10.1109/TITS.2005.848368

    2005

  11. [19]

    Breathing rhythms and emotions.Experimental Physiology, 93(9):1011–1021, 2008

    Ikuo Homma and Yuri Masaoka. Breathing rhythms and emotions.Experimental Physiology, 93(9):1011–1021, 2008. doi: 10.1113/expphysiol.2008.042424

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Shanechi

    Mohammad Hosseini, Eray Erturk, Saba Hashemi, and Maryam M. Shanechi. Cross-subject modeling for widefield calcium imaging via atlas-aligned spatiotemporal tokenization. InForty- third International Conference on Machine Learning, 2026. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=pZq2RMptsQ

    2026

  13. [21]

    Dynamical modeling of behaviorally rele- vant spatiotemporal patterns in neural imaging data

    Sayed Mohammad Hosseini and Maryam Shanechi. Dynamical modeling of behaviorally rele- vant spatiotemporal patterns in neural imaging data. InForty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=k4KVhQd19x

    2025

  14. [22]

    cStress: Towards a gold standard for continuous stress assessment in the mobile environment

    Karen Hovsepian, Mustafa al’Absi, Emre Ertin, Thomas Kamarck, Motohiro Nakajima, and Santosh Kumar. cStress: Towards a gold standard for continuous stress assessment in the mobile environment. InProceedings of the ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous ...

    2015

  15. [23]

    Wearable sensors for respiration monitoring: A review.Sensors, 23(17):7518, 2023

    Tauseef Hussain, Sana Ullah, Raúl Fernández-García, and Ignacio Gil. Wearable sensors for respiration monitoring: A review.Sensors, 23(17):7518, 2023. doi: 10.3390/s23177518

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    FSR 402 short force sensing resistor integration guide and eval- uation parts catalog, 2020

    Interlink Electronics. FSR 402 short force sensing resistor integration guide and eval- uation parts catalog, 2020. URL https://cdn.sparkfun.com/assets/8/a/1/2/0/ 2010-10-26-DataSheet-FSR402-Layout2.pdf. Datasheet and integration guide

    2020

  17. [25]

    2450AT18B100E 2.4 ghz chip antenna datasheet, 2018

    Johanson Technology. 2450AT18B100E 2.4 ghz chip antenna datasheet, 2018. URL https: //www.johansontechnology.com/docs/1187/2450AT18B100_X8XXogU.pdf. Antenna datasheet

    2018

  18. [26]

    Karthikeyan, M

    P. Karthikeyan, M. Murugappan, and Sazali Yaacob. Multiple physiological signal-based human stress identification using non-linear classifiers.Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, 19(7):80–85,

  19. [27]

    An accurate respiratory rate estimation algorithm for a rubber fiber respiratory sensor.Journal of Industrial Textiles, 2024

    Ji-seon Kim and Jooyong Kim. An accurate respiratory rate estimation algorithm for a rubber fiber respiratory sensor.Journal of Industrial Textiles, 2024. doi: 10.1177/15280837241248181

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    The cold pressor test and autonomic function: A review and integration

    William Lovallo. The cold pressor test and autonomic function: A review and integration. Psychophysiology, 12(3):268–282, 1975. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1975.tb01289.x

    1975

  21. [29]

    Mental stress detection using bioradar respiratory signals.Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 43:244–249, 2018

    José Raúl Machado Fernández and Lesya Anishchenko. Mental stress detection using bioradar respiratory signals.Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 43:244–249, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.bspc.2018.03.006

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    Contact-based methods for measuring respiratory rate.Sensors, 19(4):908,

    Carlo Massaroni, Andrea Nicolò, Daniele Lo Presti, Massimo Sacchetti, Sergio Silvestri, and Emiliano Schena. Contact-based methods for measuring respiratory rate.Sensors, 19(4):908,

  23. [31]

    Kristin McClure, Brett Erdreich, Jason H. T. Bates, Ryan S. McGinnis, Axel Masquelin, and Safwan Wshah. Classification and detection of breathing patterns with wearable sensors and deep learning.Sensors, 20(22):6481, 2020. doi: 10.3390/s20226481. 16

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    The importance of respiratory rate monitoring: From healthcare to sport and exercise.Sensors, 20(21):6396, 2020

    Andrea Nicolò, Carlo Massaroni, Emiliano Schena, and Massimo Sacchetti. The importance of respiratory rate monitoring: From healthcare to sport and exercise.Sensors, 20(21):6396, 2020. doi: 10.3390/s20216396

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/4/908

  26. [34]

    Salai, I

    M. Salai, I. Vassanyi, and I. Kosa. Stress detection using low cost heart rate sensors.Journal of Healthcare Engineering, 2016:5136705, 2016. doi: 10.1155/2016/5136705

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    Sani, Mohammad Hosseini, Trisha Jha, and Maryam M

    Omid G. Sani, Mohammad Hosseini, Trisha Jha, and Maryam M. Shanechi. Preferential dynamic modeling with forward–backward smoothing, 2026. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=2CJBngOZh5

    2026

  28. [36]

    nRF52832 product specification, 2020

    Nordic Semiconductor. nRF52832 product specification, 2020. URL https://docs. nordicsemi.com/r/bundle/ps_nrf52832. Official nRF52832 Product Specification

    2020

  29. [37]

    Introducing WESAD, a multimodal dataset for wearable stress and affect detection

    Philip Schmidt, Attila Reiss, Robert Dürichen, Claus Marberger, and Kristof Van Laerhoven. Introducing WESAD, a multimodal dataset for wearable stress and affect detection. InPro- ceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, 2018. doi: 10.1145/3...

    2018

  30. [38]

    Sriramprakash, V

    S. Sriramprakash, V . D. Prasanna, and O. V . Ramana Murthy. Stress detection in working people.Procedia Computer Science, 115:359–366, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    The stroop color and word test.Frontiers in Psychology, 8: 557, 2017

    Federica Scarpina and Sofia Tagini. The stroop color and word test.Frontiers in Psychology, 8: 557, 2017. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00557

    2017

  32. [40]

    Machine learning framework for the detection of mental stress at multiple levels.IEEE Access, 5:13545–13556, 2017

    Ahmad Rauf Subhani, Wajid Mumtaz, Mohamad Naufal Mohamad Saad, Nidal Kamel, and Aamir Saeed Malik. Machine learning framework for the detection of mental stress at multiple levels.IEEE Access, 5:13545–13556, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Activity-aware mental stress detection using physiological sensors

    Feng-Tso Sun, Chris Kuo, Heng-Tze Cheng, Senaka Buthpitiya, Patrick Collins, and Martin Griss. Activity-aware mental stress detection using physiological sensors. InInternational Conference on Mobile Computing, Applications, and Services, pages 211–230. Springer, 2010

    2010

  34. [42]

    Ridley Stroop

    J. Ridley Stroop. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6):643–662, 1935. doi: 10.1037/h0054651

    1935 doi

  35. [43]

    LM3670 miniature step-down dc-dc converter datasheet, 2016

    Texas Instruments. LM3670 miniature step-down dc-dc converter datasheet, 2016. URLhttps: //www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm3670.pdf. Power-management component datasheet

    2016

  36. [44]

    J. H. M. Tulen, P. Moleman, H. G. van Steenis, and F. Boomsma. Characterization of stress reactions to the stroop color word test.Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 32(1):9–15,

  37. [45]

    bq2409x single-cell li-ion and li-polymer charger datasheet, 2015

    Texas Instruments. bq2409x single-cell li-ion and li-polymer charger datasheet, 2015. URL https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/bq24090.pdf. Battery-charging component datasheet

    2015

  38. [46]

    Wearable respiratory sensors for health monitoring.NPG Asia Materials, 16:8, 2024

    Zhifu Yin, Yang Yang, Cong Hu, Jinzhe Li, Boyu Qin, et al. Wearable respiratory sensors for health monitoring.NPG Asia Materials, 16:8, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41427-023-00513-9

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Pastor, María Teresa López, and Antonio Fernández-Caballero

    Rafael Zangróniz, Arturo Martínez-Rodrigo, José M. Pastor, María Teresa López, and Antonio Fernández-Caballero. Electrodermal activity sensor for classification of calm/distress condition. Sensors, 17(10):2324, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Zhengbo Zhang, Ikaro Silva, Dalei Wu, Jiewen Zheng, Hao Wu, and Weidong Wang. Adaptive motion artefact reduction in respiration and ECG signals for wearable healthcare monitoring systems.Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, 52(12):1019–1030, 2014. doi: 10.1007/s11...

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

    Piezoresistive breathing sensing system with 3d printed wearable casing

    Edwin Vanegas, Raul Igual, and Inmaculada Plaza. Piezoresistive breathing sensing system with 3d printed wearable casing. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics, 2019

    2019

  42. [1989]

    doi: 10.1016/0091-3057(89)90204-9

    doi

  43. [2013]

    doi: 10.5755/j01.eee.19.7.2232

    doi

  44. [2019]

    doi: 10.3390/s19040781

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.