Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 57 references

Context-Dependent Autonomic Responses in Social Anxiety During Cognitive-Emotional Stress

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that emotionally salient cognitive load without social-evaluative threat produces equivalent electrodermal responses in socially anxious and non-socially anxious people, whereas resting-state skin conductance can…

desk verdict A transparently reported small-sample EDA study whose null task result looks solid, but the 'resting' baseline is likely anticipatory anxiety, so the context-dependence conclusion needs reframing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15871 v2 pith:TR5U2EVR submitted 2025-07-16 q-bio.NC q-bio.QM

Arya Adyasha , Vikas Kumar , Anushka Sanjay Shelke , Haroon R Lone This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCq-bio.QM
keywords socialanxietydisorderelectrodermalactivitywearablesensing2-backworkingmemoryskinconductancemachinelearningclassificationdigitalmentalhealthautonomicarousal
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 study asks whether social anxiety shows up in the body during a demanding emotional task that does not involve being judged by others. Fifty participants (25 socially anxious, 25 not) wore a skin-conductance sensor during a resting baseline and a 2-back working-memory task with facial expressions. The task reliably raised autonomic arousal, but the two groups responded equally: only two brief group differences appeared in the first two minutes and then vanished. Machine-learning classifiers could tell the groups apart from resting-state skin conductance (average AUC about 0.73) but not from task data (average AUC at or below 0.57). The paper concludes that social-evaluative threat, not cognitive-emotional load alone, is what produces anxiety-related autonomic differences.

What carries the argument

The carrying machinery is a standardised interval-based EDA pipeline that splits the first six minutes of the task into three two-minute phases (Early, Middle, Late) and compares each with a duration-matched two-minute baseline. Ten features spanning tonic, phasic, sympathetic, spectral, and nonlinear domains are extracted after a convex-optimisation decomposition of the signal into tonic and phasic components, then analysed with mixed ANOVAs and five classifiers (logistic regression, SVM, random forest, gradient boosting, and a 1D-CNN on the raw signal). The consistent temporal pattern across both statistical and machine-learning analyses—most discriminability at baseline, none during the task—is what carries the claim that context, not trait anxiety alone, governs the signal.

What would settle it

Record a true resting baseline before the participant is briefed about the task, or after a long habituation period, and rerun the classification. If the resting-state AUC drops to chance when anticipatory arousal is removed, then the reported baseline signal is an artifact of the experimental procedure rather than a stable social-anxiety signature. A second test: add an explicit social-evaluative condition to the same 2-back task; if group discrimination still fails to reach the resting-state level, the paper's claim that evaluation is necessary would be weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that emotionally salient cognitive load without explicit social evaluation is not enough to differentiate socially anxious from non-socially anxious individuals at the level of electrodermal activity. Both groups showed a substantial and statistically indistinguishable rise in arousal from baseline to task, with only transient interaction effects in the first two minutes (SCR amplitude and EDASymp) that did not persist. Multivariate classification confirmed the asymmetry: resting-state EDA carried a moderate group signal, while task-phase EDA fell to near chance across all five model types. The paper reads this as evidence that anxiety-related autonomic signatures are context-dependent, and that wearable EDA biomarkers for social anxiety may be informative mainly in socially evaluative or resting contexts.

Load-bearing premise

The resting-state baseline is treated as neutral, but it was recorded after informed consent and a task briefing, immediately before practice, so it may capture anticipatory anxiety rather than rest.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the task masks group differences, wearable EDA screening for social anxiety should sample resting states or socially evaluative situations rather than generic cognitive load.
  • Averaging EDA over the whole task would have missed the transient early interactions; phase-level analysis is needed to see the brief group differences that do exist.
  • Attentional Control Theory receives only partial support from these data: cognitive load raises arousal, but anxiety-linked EDA dysregulation appears to require an evaluative component.
  • The decline in classification performance from baseline (average AUC 0.73) to task phases (at most 0.57) across all five model types makes the context-dependence pattern the robust finding, not any single classifier's accuracy.
  • A missing recovery phase means the design cannot rule out delayed group differences in return to baseline after the task ends.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the resting-state signal that classifies SA versus NSA may be partly anticipatory arousal, because the baseline was recorded after consent and task briefing and immediately before practice; a pre-briefing rest recording would test whether the AUC 0.73 reflects stable trait physiology or imminent-task anxiety.
  • Editorial extension: the same participants and task could be run in two versions, one with neutral stimuli and one with explicit evaluative feedback, to isolate whether cognitive load interacts with social-evaluative threat—a design the current data do not cover.
  • Editorial extension: the transient crossover pattern in SCR amplitude (NSA increasing, SA slightly decreasing at task onset) suggests testable hypotheses about orienting responses and task engagement in social anxiety, but with N=50 and no correction across many tests it should be treated as hypothesis-generating.
  • Editorial extension: for wearable anxiety monitoring, a practical implication is to acquire a short rest segment before demanding tasks or to embed evaluative elements; otherwise the very signal of interest may be masked by a common arousal response.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a wearable-EDA study of 50 participants (25 socially anxious, 25 non-socially anxious) who performed an emotional 2-back working-memory task with facial expressions. Ten EDA features spanning tonic, phasic, sympathetic, spectral, and nonlinear domains were extracted from a 2-minute baseline and from three 2-minute task phases, and analyzed with mixed ANOVAs plus complementary machine-learning classifiers (LR, SVM, RF, GB, 1D-CNN). The main results are: the task reliably increased autonomic arousal in both groups; no group main effects were found in any phase; two brief Condition-by-Group interactions appeared only in the early phase; and classification could distinguish groups from baseline EDA (average AUC 0.73) but not from task EDA (average AUC 0.60, 0.54, 0.55 across phases). The conclusion is that cognitive-emotional load without explicit social-evaluative threat does not differentiate socially anxious from non-anxious individuals at the autonomic level, and that task engagement masks resting-state discriminative information.

Significance. If the result holds, it is a useful contribution to the debate about context-dependent physiological biomarkers for social anxiety: it provides a clear null result for non-evaluative cognitive-emotional stress and a moderate positive signal for resting-state EDA. The paper has several strengths that should be acknowledged: the data and code are publicly released; the 1D-CNN evaluation uses participant-level grouped cross-validation to prevent window leakage; the authors are explicit about the small sample size and the exploratory nature of the ML results; and the convergence across five very different classifiers supports the temporal pattern even if individual AUC estimates are uncertain. The main caveats are that the 'resting' baseline is recorded immediately before the task and may be contaminated by anticipatory anxiety, that the statistical tables involve many uncorrected comparisons, and that the ML performance estimates lack confidence intervals and nested validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-D, Fig. 3] The 2-minute 'baseline' is recorded after informed consent and task briefing and immediately before the practice session and the main task. For socially anxious participants this window is likely dominated by anticipatory anxiety about the upcoming task and by the presence of the experimenter. This is load-bearing because the paper's central 'resting-state EDA' classification result (average AUC 0.73, RF 0.85) and the baseline-to-task contrast ('both groups showed similar increases') both assume that the baseline is a neutral resting state. If the baseline reflects anticipatory arousal, the resting-state discriminability could be a state effect rather than a trait signature, and the claim that task engagement 'masks' resting differences would need to be reframed. The released data make this testable: I would like to see a within-baseline temporal analysis (first vs. second minute), a manipulation check or post-session state-anxiety rating, and/or a comparison with a true rest condition. Without such evidence, the 'resting-state' component of the central claim is not established.
  2. [Section IV, Tables II-IV] The ANOVA results are presented without correction for multiple comparisons. Across ten features and three task phases, each table contains Condition, Group, and Interaction tests, totaling 90 hypothesis tests. Several effects that drive the narrative have p-values near 0.02-0.05, and the EDASymp interaction (p = .045) would not survive even a simple Bonferroni correction; the authors themselves call this finding weak and mention regression to the mean. The central null (no group main effects) is less affected, but the claims of 'broad initial activation' (six of ten features) and 'only transient interactions' depend on uncorrected p-values. Please report corrected p-values or false-discovery-rate q-values, and specify which effects remain significant after correction. This is particularly important for the early-phase interactions and for the late-phase TVSymp and SCR-amplitude effects.
  3. [Section V-B, V-B.3] The ML classification results are central to the conclusion that 'machine learning confirmed' the statistical findings, but the reported AUC values have no confidence intervals, no permutation-based significance tests, and no nested cross-validation for hyperparameter tuning. With N = 50 and 5-fold cross-validation, each test fold contains only 10 participants, so the standard errors on AUC are large; the baseline RF AUC of 0.85 could be substantially optimism-biased without an inner tuning loop. The authors are appropriately cautious in their caveats, but the caveats mean that the ML evidence is currently insufficiently quantified. Please report bootstrap or DeLong confidence intervals for each AUC, permutation p-values, and ideally a nested CV scheme, so the reader can judge whether baseline AUC 0.73 is statistically distinguishable from task-phase AUCs around 0.55-0.60.
  4. [Section VI-D] The conclusion states that SA and NSA individuals 'did not show different EDA responses' and that the task 'does not produce different physiological responses' in socially anxious individuals. This is a claim of equivalence or null effect, but no equivalence testing (e.g., TOST) or effect-size confidence intervals are provided. With N = 25 per group, the ANOVAs may simply be underpowered to detect small-to-moderate group differences, especially for Group main effects where several F values are near zero but a few approach significance (e.g., late-phase SCR Amplitude Mean Group effect p = .083). Please temper the language to 'no statistically significant differences were detected' and, if the authors wish to claim comparability, add equivalence bounds or report the smallest detectable effect size given the sample.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section II] The text contains typographical artifacts such as 'ANOV As' and 'ANOV A' instead of 'ANOVAs'; these should be cleaned throughout.
  2. [Abstract and Section V-B.2] The abstract says task-phase classification performance is 'average AUC <= 0.57', but the reported Early-phase average is 0.60 (LR 0.56, SVM 0.57, RF 0.69, GB 0.65, CNN 0.53). Please use a description that is accurate for all phases, such as 'near-chance' or '0.54-0.60'.
  3. [Figure 3] The figure caption says the orange line corresponds to the EDA data-acquisition timeline, but in the manuscript text the orange line is not visible; please ensure the figure rendering includes the line or clarify in the caption what the orange line represents.
  4. [Supplementary tables] The text repeatedly refers to Supplementary Tables A.1-A.4 (feature descriptions and simple effects), but these tables are not included in the manuscript; please ensure they are uploaded with the submission.
  5. [Section IV-C.1] The sentence 'The Group effect approached significance (p = .083, d = -0.501)' for the late phase is potentially misleading without a clear statement that this is a main effect in the absence of a significant interaction; please clarify the interpretation.
  6. [Section III-D] The paper relies on the companion paper [34] for detailed task and behavioral-performance descriptions. Since behavioral performance is relevant to interpreting the EDA results, please include at least the key performance statistics (accuracy, response time, group comparison) in the main text or supplement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EDA analyses and ML classification are empirically self-contained, and the only self-citation ([34]) is a supporting behavioral reference, not a load-bearing reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. The between-group EDA comparisons are mixed ANOVAs computed on ten features extracted from independent baseline and task segments; the observed absence of group differences is an empirical outcome, not a parameter fitted to that outcome. The ML classification is evaluated out-of-sample: the 1D-CNN uses participant-level grouped 5-fold cross-validation, and the feature-based classifiers use 5-fold stratified CV with the SIAS-defined group label as the target, so baseline AUC = 0.73 and task AUC <= 0.57 are discriminability estimates, not in-sample fits. The only self-citation is [34], the authors' companion CogSci paper, used for the task description and for the statement that no significant group differences were observed in task accuracy or response time. That behavioral claim supports interpretation but does not enter the EDA feature definitions, the ANOVA design, or the classification labels, so the EDA result does not reduce to accepting [34]. The paper itself flags limitations in Section V-B3: small N, no confidence intervals or permutation tests, and no nested cross-validation, and it appropriately calls the baseline RF AUC a 'promising signal' rather than a definitive result. The most plausible threat to the resting-state claim is procedural rather than circular: Section III-D shows the 2-minute baseline was recorded after informed consent and task briefing and before the practice session, so anticipatory anxiety may contaminate baseline EDA and inflate baseline classification; the paper also notes the lack of a post-task recovery period. These are validity and interpretation concerns, not circularity: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no result is defined in terms of the conclusion. Score 1 reflects one minor non-load-bearing self-citation while the derivation itself is independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This study does not introduce new theoretical entities or fitted physical constants. The central claims rest on standard physiological preprocessing, self-report-based grouping, and two contextual assumptions: that the 2-back task lacks evaluative threat and that the 2-minute baseline reflects true rest. The main hand-chosen input is the ML configuration, which is not fully specified.

free parameters (1)
  • ML model hyperparameters (RF/GB/SVM/LR settings and 1D-CNN architecture) = Not reported in full
    Feature-based classifier hyperparameters are not specified, and the CNN architecture is fixed by hand. Without nested cross-validation or a tuning protocol, reported AUC values may reflect favorable settings rather than stable group separability.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SIAS score >= 43 indicates social anxiety and <= 33 indicates non-social anxiety
    Group assignment rests entirely on this self-report cutoff (Section III-A); no clinical interview was used.
  • domain assumption EDA reflects sympathetic arousal and cvxEDA decomposition validly separates tonic and phasic components
    The interpretation of all EDA features as autonomic markers depends on standard preprocessing assumptions (Section III-E1).
  • domain assumption The emotional 2-back task contains no social-evaluative threat
    The contextual conclusion that evaluative threat is necessary relies on this assumption, but no manipulation check or post-task appraisal measure is reported (Sections III-C and VI).
  • domain assumption Behavioral performance did not differ between groups, as reported in reference [34]
    The paper relies on its companion paper for task-performance equivalence and does not report accuracy or response times here (Section III-C).
  • domain assumption The 2-minute baseline EDA represents resting state
    Baseline was recorded after briefing and before practice; anticipatory anxiety may contaminate it, which would affect the resting-state classification result (Section III-D).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Context-Dependent Autonomic Responses in Social Anxiety During Cognitive-Emotional Stress." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TR5U2EVR

@misc{pith2026250715871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Context-Dependent Autonomic Responses in Social Anxiety During Cognitive-Emotional Stress},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TR5U2EVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15871}
}
abstract

Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is associated with heightened physiological arousal during socially evaluative situations, yet it remains unclear whether similar autonomic responses emerge during non-evaluative cognitive-emotional stress. This study investigated wearable electrodermal activity (EDA) responses in socially anxious (SA) and non-socially anxious (NSA) individuals during an emotionally salient 2-back working memory task involving facial expressions. Fifty participants (25 SA, 25 NSA) completed a resting-state baseline and task condition while EDA signals were acquired using a Shimmer3 GSR+ sensor. EDA features spanning tonic, phasic, sympathetic, spectral, and nonlinear domains were analyzed using mixed ANOVAs and complementary machine learning models. Results showed significant increases in autonomic arousal during task engagement across all participants, confirming that the task induced substantial sympathetic activation. However, no consistent between-group differences were observed, with only transient interaction effects emerging during the initial task phase. Machine learning analysis demonstrated above-chance discrimination between SA and NSA individuals using resting-state EDA (average AUC~=~0.73), whereas classification performance during task engagement declined to near-chance levels (average AUC~$\leq$~0.57). These findings suggest that cognitively demanding emotional tasks, in the absence of explicit social-evaluative threat, elicit comparable autonomic responses regardless of social anxiety status and may obscure subtle resting-state physiological differences between groups. More broadly, our findings highlight the context-dependent nature of wearable autonomic biomarkers for anxiety assessment and digital mental health monitoring. With this manuscript, we release both the code and data publicly.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15871 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Explanation for the n-back task paradigm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experimental setup. III. METHODOLOGY A. Participants Before proceeding with the study, ethics approval was obtained from the ethics committee of the IISER Bhopal Institute. The participant pool, within an age range of 18−30, consists of two groups, both recruited through advertisement within the university campus. One group consists of sub￾clinical population who met the diagnostic criteria for SAD as assessed by th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Timeline of a typical experimental session. The orange line corresponds to the EDA data acquisition timeline. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean EDA feature values across baseline and task phases for SA and NSA groups. Error bars represent standard error of the mean (SEM). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    The impact of acute social stress on working memory updating in social anxiety disorder,

    A. Adyasha, A. S. Shelke, N. K. Sahu, and H. R. Lone, “The impact of acute social stress on working memory updating in social anxiety disorder,” inProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, vol. 47, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Social phobia: The role of in-situation safety behaviors in maintaining anxiety and negative beliefs,

    A. Wells, D. M. Clark, P. Salkovskis, J. Ludgate, A. Hackmann, and M. Gelder, “Social phobia: The role of in-situation safety behaviors in maintaining anxiety and negative beliefs,”Behavior Therapy, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 153–161, 1995

    work page 1995

  3. [2]

    A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia,

    R. M. Rapee and R. G. Heimberg, “A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia,”Behaviour research and therapy, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 741–756, 1997

    work page 1997

  4. [3]

    Global Prevalence of Social Anxiety Disorder in Children, Adolescents and Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,

    N. Salari, P. Heidarian, M. Hassanabadi, F. Babajani, N. Abdoli, M. Aminian, and M. Mohammadi, “Global Prevalence of Social Anxiety Disorder in Children, Adolescents and Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,”Journal of Prevention, pp. 1–19, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of dsm-iv disorders in the national comorbidity survey replication,

    R. C. Kessler, P. Berglund, O. Demler, R. Jin, K. R. Merikangas, and E. E. Walters, “Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of dsm-iv disorders in the national comorbidity survey replication,” Archives of general psychiatry, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 593–602, 2005

    work page 2005

  6. [5]

    Social anxiety disorder,

    M. B. Stein and D. J. Stein, “Social anxiety disorder,”The lancet, vol. 371, no. 9618, pp. 1115–1125, 2008

    work page 2008

  7. [6]

    Personalized clinical approaches to anxiety disorders,

    G. Perna, A. Alciati, E. Sangiorgio, D. Caldirola, and C. B. Nemeroff, “Personalized clinical approaches to anxiety disorders,”Anxiety Disor- ders: Rethinking and Understanding Recent Discoveries, pp. 489–521, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Boucsein,Electrodermal activity

    W. Boucsein,Electrodermal activity. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    work page 2012

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    Electrodermal activity (eda),

    P. Sachdeva, S. Ghosh, and J. K. Sinha, “Electrodermal activity (eda),” inEncyclopedia of Sexual Psychology and Behavior. Springer, 2022, pp. 1–6

    2022

  2. [9]

    Autonomic recovery and habituation in social anxiety,

    I. B. Mauss, F. H. Wilhelm, and J. J. Gross, “Autonomic recovery and habituation in social anxiety,”Psychophysiology, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 648– 653, 2003

    2003

  3. [10]

    The impact of anxiety on social decision-making: Behavioral and electrodermal findings,

    T. Wu, Y . Luo, L. S. Broster, R. Gu, and Y .-j. Luo, “The impact of anxiety on social decision-making: Behavioral and electrodermal findings,”Social neuroscience, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 11–21, 2013

    2013

  4. [11]

    Can galvanic skin conductance be used as an objective indicator of children’s anxiety in the dental setting?

    E. Najafpour, N. Asl-Aminabadi, S. Nuroloyuni, Z. Jamali, and S. Shi- razi, “Can galvanic skin conductance be used as an objective indicator of children’s anxiety in the dental setting?”Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, vol. 9, no. 3, p. e377, 2017

    2017

  5. [12]

    Electrodermal lability in anxiety disorders,

    H. H. JENSEN, N. HASLE, and M. BIRKET-SMITH, “Electrodermal lability in anxiety disorders,”Scandinavian journal of psychology, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 103–108, 1996

    1996

  6. [13]

    The effect of emotional stressors on postoperative skin conductance indices: a prospective cohort pilot study,

    S. Gungor, H. Storm, J. J. Bae, V . Rotundo, and P. J. Christos, “The effect of emotional stressors on postoperative skin conductance indices: a prospective cohort pilot study,”Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 325–332, 2020

    2020

  7. [14]

    Wearable technology insights: Unveiling physiological responses during three different socially anxious activities,

    N. K. Sahu, S. Gupta, and H. Lone, “Wearable technology insights: Unveiling physiological responses during three different socially anxious activities,”ACM Journal on Computing and Sustainable Societies, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1–23, 2024

    2024

  8. [15]

    Emotional response patterns during social threat in individuals with generalized social anxiety disorder and non-anxious controls,

    D. A. Moscovitch, M. K. Suvak, and S. G. Hofmann, “Emotional response patterns during social threat in individuals with generalized social anxiety disorder and non-anxious controls,”Journal of anxiety disorders, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 785–791, 2010

    2010

  9. [16]

    Habituation of cognitive and physi- ological arousal and social anxiety,

    P. S. Eckman and G. D. Shean, “Habituation of cognitive and physi- ological arousal and social anxiety,”Behaviour research and therapy, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 1113–1121, 1997

    1997

  10. [17]

    A systematic review of thermosensa- tion and thermoregulation in anxiety disorders,

    S. Fischer, F. Haas, and J. Strahler, “A systematic review of thermosensa- tion and thermoregulation in anxiety disorders,”Frontiers in Physiology, vol. 12, p. 784943, 2021

    2021

  11. [18]

    Low estradiol is linked to increased skin conductance, but not subjective anxiety or affect, in response to an impromptu speech task,

    E. C. White and B. M. Graham, “Low estradiol is linked to increased skin conductance, but not subjective anxiety or affect, in response to an impromptu speech task,”Psychoneuroendocrinology, vol. 98, pp. 30–38, 2018

    2018

  12. [19]

    Psychophysiological and self-reported reactivity associated with social anxiety and public speaking fear symptoms: Effects of fear versus distress,

    G. Panayiotou, M. Karekla, D. Georgiou, E. Constantinou, and M. Paraskeva-Siamata, “Psychophysiological and self-reported reactivity associated with social anxiety and public speaking fear symptoms: Effects of fear versus distress,”Psychiatry research, vol. 255, pp. 278– 286, 2017

    2017

  13. [20]

    Dif- ferentiating social phobia from shyness,

    N. A. Heiser, S. M. Turner, D. C. Beidel, and R. Roberson-Nay, “Dif- ferentiating social phobia from shyness,”Journal of anxiety disorders, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 469–476, 2009

    2009

  14. [21]

    Anxiety and working memory capacity: A meta-analysis and narrative review

    T. P. Moran, “Anxiety and working memory capacity: A meta-analysis and narrative review.”Psychological bulletin, vol. 142, no. 8, p. 831, 2016

    2016

  15. [22]

    A parametric study of prefrontal cortex involvement in human working memory,

    T. S. Braver, J. D. Cohen, L. E. Nystrom, J. Jonides, E. E. Smith, and D. C. Noll, “A parametric study of prefrontal cortex involvement in human working memory,”Neuroimage, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 49–62, 1997

    1997

  16. [23]

    Working memory: A view from neuroimag- ing,

    E. E. Smith and J. Jonides, “Working memory: A view from neuroimag- ing,”Cognitive psychology, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 5–42, 1997

    1997

  17. [24]

    Updating positive and negative stimuli in working memory in depression

    S. M. Levens and I. H. Gotlib, “Updating positive and negative stimuli in working memory in depression.”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 139, no. 4, p. 654, 2010

    2010

  18. [25]

    Updating the emotional content of working memory in social anxiety,

    A. Segal, Y . Kessler, and G. E. Anholt, “Updating the emotional content of working memory in social anxiety,”Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, vol. 48, pp. 110–117, 2015

    2015

  19. [26]

    Anxiety patients show reduced working memory related dlPFC activation during safety and threat,

    N. L. Balderston, K. E. Vytal, K. O’Connell, S. Torrisi, A. Letkiewicz, M. Ernst, and C. Grillon, “Anxiety patients show reduced working memory related dlPFC activation during safety and threat,”Depression and anxiety, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 25–36, 2017

    2017

  20. [27]

    CLARE: Cognitive Load Assessment in REaltime with Multimodal Data,

    A. Bhatti, P. Angkan, B. Behinaein, Z. Mahmud, D. Rodenburg, H. Braund, P. J. Mclellan, A. Ruberto, G. Harrison, D. Wilsonet al., “CLARE: Cognitive Load Assessment in REaltime with Multimodal Data,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17098, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Psycho- physiological measures for assessing cognitive load,

    E. Haapalainen, S. Kim, J. F. Forlizzi, and A. K. Dey, “Psycho- physiological measures for assessing cognitive load,” inProceedings of the 12th ACM international conference on Ubiquitous computing, 2010, pp. 301–310

    2010

  22. [29]

    Detecting users’ cognitive load by galvanic skin response with affective interference,

    N. Nourbakhsh, F. Chen, Y . Wang, and R. A. Calvo, “Detecting users’ cognitive load by galvanic skin response with affective interference,” ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1–20, 2017

    2017

  23. [30]

    Power spectral density analysis of electrodermal activity for sympathetic function assessment,

    H. F. Posada-Quintero, J. P. Florian, A. D. Orjuela-Ca ˜n´on, T. Aljama- Corrales, S. Charleston-Villalobos, and K. H. Chon, “Power spectral density analysis of electrodermal activity for sympathetic function assessment,”Annals of biomedical engineering, vol. 44, pp. 3124–3135, 2016

    2016

  24. [31]

    Validation of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale across the anxiety disorders

    E. J. Brown, J. Turovsky, R. G. Heimberg, H. R. Juster, T. A. Brown, and D. H. Barlow, “Validation of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale across the anxiety disorders.”Psychological assessment, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 21, 1997

    1997

  25. [32]

    SHIMMER™–A wireless sensor platform for noninvasive biomedical research,

    A. Burns, B. R. Greene, M. J. McGrath, T. J. O’Shea, B. Kuris, S. M. Ayer, F. Stroiescu, and V . Cionca, “SHIMMER™–A wireless sensor platform for noninvasive biomedical research,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 1527–1534, 2010

    2010

  26. [33]

    IIMI Emotional Face Database,

    S. Tewari, S. Mehta, and N. Srinivasan, “IIMI Emotional Face Database,” 2023, accessed: 2026-04-20. [Online]. Available: osf.io/f7zbv

    2023

  27. [35]

    Feasibility of a diagnostic differentiation tool for nociceptive and neuropathic pain in a neurorehabilitation population using physiological data from wearable sensors,

    S. Moscato, S. Orlandi, G. Battaglia, F. Di Gregorio, G. Lullini, S. Pozzi, L. Sabattini, L. Chiari, and F. La Porta, “Feasibility of a diagnostic differentiation tool for nociceptive and neuropathic pain in a neurorehabilitation population using physiological data from wearab...

    2023

  28. [36]

    cvxeda: A convex optimization approach to electrodermal activity processing,

    A. Greco, G. Valenza, A. Lanata, E. P. Scilingo, and L. Citi, “cvxeda: A convex optimization approach to electrodermal activity processing,” IEEE transactions on biomedical engineering, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 797– 804, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Neurokit2: A python toolbox for neurophysiological signal processing,

    D. Makowski, T. Pham, Z. J. Lau, J. C. Brammer, F. Lespinasse, H. Pham, C. Sch ¨olzel, and S. A. Chen, “Neurokit2: A python toolbox for neurophysiological signal processing,”Behavior research methods, pp. 1–8, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Comparison of electrodermal activity from multiple body locations based on standard eda indices’ quality and robustness against motion artifact,

    M.-B. Hossain, Y . Kong, H. F. Posada-Quintero, and K. H. Chon, “Comparison of electrodermal activity from multiple body locations based on standard eda indices’ quality and robustness against motion artifact,”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 9, p. 3177, 2022. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILE...

    2022

  31. [39]

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

    P. Schmidt, A. Reiss, R. Duerichen, C. Marberger, and K. Van Laer- hoven, “Introducing wesad, a multimodal dataset for wearable stress and affect detection,” inProceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on multimodal interaction, 2018, pp. 400–408

    2018

  32. [40]

    Arousal and valence recognition of affective sounds based on electrodermal activity,

    A. Greco, G. Valenza, L. Citi, and E. P. Scilingo, “Arousal and valence recognition of affective sounds based on electrodermal activity,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 716–725, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Objective measures, sensors and compu- tational techniques for stress recognition and classification: A survey,

    N. Sharma and T. Gedeon, “Objective measures, sensors and compu- tational techniques for stress recognition and classification: A survey,” Computer methods and programs in biomedicine, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 1287–1301, 2012

    2012

  34. [42]

    Real-time patient-specific ecg classification by 1-d convolutional neural networks,

    S. Kiranyaz, T. Ince, and M. Gabbouj, “Real-time patient-specific ecg classification by 1-d convolutional neural networks,”IEEE transactions on biomedical engineering, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 664–675, 2015

    2015

  35. [43]

    Automated diagnosis of arrhythmia using combination of cnn and lstm techniques with variable length heart beats,

    S. L. Oh, E. Y . Ng, R. San Tan, and U. R. Acharya, “Automated diagnosis of arrhythmia using combination of cnn and lstm techniques with variable length heart beats,”Computers in biology and medicine, vol. 102, pp. 278–287, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (roc) curve

    J. A. Hanley and B. J. McNeil, “The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (roc) curve.”Radiology, vol. 143, no. 1, pp. 29–36, 1982

    1982

  37. [45]

    The use of the area under the roc curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms,

    A. P. Bradley, “The use of the area under the roc curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms,”Pattern recognition, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1145–1159, 1997

    1997

  38. [46]

    Auc: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models,

    J. M. Lobo, A. Jim ´enez-Valverde, and R. Real, “Auc: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models,”Global ecology and Biogeography, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 145–151, 2008

    2008

  39. [47]

    Receiver operating character- istic (roc) curves: review of methods with applications in diagnostic medicine,

    N. A. Obuchowski and J. A. Bullen, “Receiver operating character- istic (roc) curves: review of methods with applications in diagnostic medicine,”Physics in Medicine & Biology, vol. 63, no. 7, p. 07TR01, 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment,

    J. N. Mandrekar, “Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment,”Journal of thoracic oncology, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 1315– 1316, 2010

    2010

  41. [49]

    Effects of social anxiety and facial expression on habituation of the electrodermal orienting response,

    B. M. Clark, D. A. Siddle, and N. W. Bond, “Effects of social anxiety and facial expression on habituation of the electrodermal orienting response,”Biological Psychology, vol. 33, no. 2-3, pp. 211–223, 1992

    1992

  42. [50]

    As- sociations between social anxiety, physiological reactivity, and speech disfluencies in autistic young adults and controls,

    V . Pirinen, K. Eggers, K. Dindar, T. Helminen, A. Kotila, S. Kuusikko- Gauffin, L. M ¨akinen, H. Ebeling, T. Hurtig, M. M ¨antymaaet al., “As- sociations between social anxiety, physiological reactivity, and speech disfluencies in autistic young adults and controls,”Journal o...

    2024

  43. [51]

    Electrodermal activity and heart rate variability during exposure fear scripts predict trait-level and momentary social anxiety and eating- disorder symptoms in an analogue sample,

    C. Christian, E. Cash, D. A. Cohen, C. M. Trombley, and C. A. Levinson, “Electrodermal activity and heart rate variability during exposure fear scripts predict trait-level and momentary social anxiety and eating- disorder symptoms in an analogue sample,”Clinical Psychological ...

    2023

  44. [52]

    Understanding state social anxiety in virtual social interactions using multimodal wearable sensing indicators,

    M. A. Larrazabal, Z. Wang, M. Rucker, E. R. Toner, M. Boukhechba, B. A. Teachman, and L. E. Barnes, “Understanding state social anxiety in virtual social interactions using multimodal wearable sensing indicators,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15637, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Anxiety and cognitive performance: attentional control theory

    M. W. Eysenck, N. Derakshan, R. Santos, and M. G. Calvo, “Anxiety and cognitive performance: attentional control theory.”Emotion, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 336, 2007

    2007

  46. [54]

    Detecting subclinical social anxiety using physiological data from a wrist-worn wearable: small-scale feasibility study,

    R. Shaukat-Jali, N. van Zalk, D. E. Boyleet al., “Detecting subclinical social anxiety using physiological data from a wrist-worn wearable: small-scale feasibility study,”JMIR Formative Research, vol. 5, no. 10, p. e32656, 2021

    2021

  47. [55]

    Wearable sensor-based multimodal physiological responses of socially anxious individuals in social contexts on zoom,

    E. R. Toner, M. Rucker, Z. Wang, M. A. Larrazabal, L. Cai, D. Datta, H. Lone, M. Boukhechba, B. A. Teachman, and L. E. Barnes, “Wearable sensor-based multimodal physiological responses of socially anxious individuals in social contexts on zoom,”IEEE Transactions on Affective C...

    2025

  48. [56]

    Detecting social contexts from mobile sensing indicators in virtual interactions with socially anxious individuals,

    Z. Wang, M. A. Larrazabal, M. Rucker, E. R. Toner, K. E. Daniel, S. Kumar, M. Boukhechba, B. A. Teachman, and L. E. Barnes, “Detecting social contexts from mobile sensing indicators in virtual interactions with socially anxious individuals,”Proceedings of the ACM on interactiv...

    2023

  49. [57]

    Decoupling the role of verbal and non-verbal audience behavior on public speaking anxiety in virtual reality using behavioral and psychological measures,

    M. Girondini, I. Frigione, M. Marra, M. Stefanova, M. Pillan, A. Mar- avita, and A. Gallace, “Decoupling the role of verbal and non-verbal audience behavior on public speaking anxiety in virtual reality using behavioral and psychological measures,”Frontiers in Virtual Reality,...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.