Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the impact of normalization statistic sources on affect recognition from wrist electrodermal activity (EDA), finding that using statistics from the held-out user's recording inflates performance metrics and obscures the true benefit of pretraining. A compact convolutional network, SAFE-EDA, pretrained on artifact annotations, showed significant gains when normalization statistics were restricted to the training set, but these gains diminished or vanished when per-user statistics were used. The study highlights that artifact supervision is a more potent form of pretraining than self-supervised learning on the same data, and emphasizes the critical need for clear reporting of normalization practices in EDA affect recognition research.
Per-user normalization of wrist EDA data can inflate affect recognition performance by up to 4x, masking the true benefit of pretraining and making published results incomparable.
Wrist electrodermal activity (EDA) differs in amplitude from one person to the next, so affect-recognition models normalize their input before classification. Studies that test such models on held-out subjects seldom report where the normalization statistics come from, yet statistics computed from the held-out subject's own recording give the model information that a device does not have when it is first worn. We asked how this choice alters the measured benefit of pretraining. A compact convolutional network, SAFE-EDA, was pretrained on expert artifact annotations from 43 subjects and compared with the same network trained from scratch on the Wearable Stress and Affect Detection (WESAD) dataset (15 subjects, leave-one-subject-out), with two normalization sources crossed with four window hops. When the statistics came only from training subjects, pretraining raised macro-F1 by 0.078 to 0.227; when they came from the held-out user's full recording, the gain fell to between 0.020 and 0.050 and was no longer significant. Artifact supervision was far more useful than self-supervised pretraining on the same recordings (0.078 versus 0.008). Across 13 configurations in two datasets, the pretrained network was better in 12, but on the second dataset (26 subjects) per-user normalization increased the gain instead of reducing it, so the interaction depends on the data. Only five of 50 published WESAD studies state which data were used for normalization. Reporting this choice is necessary to separate first-use performance from performance after calibration.