ArticleIEEE sensors journal2026
Computational Comparison of AC and DC Excitation for Long-Term Electrodermal Activity (EDA) Recording Across Electrode Materials.
Article in IEEE sensors journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reliable long-term electrodermal activity (EDA) acquisition is limited by time-dependent electrochemical effects at the electrode-skin interface, particularly under direct current (DC) excitation. Although alternating current (AC) excitation is commonly proposed to reduce electrode polarization and baseline drift, its long-duration benefits have not been systematically validated. This work presents a simulation-based framework for directly comparing AC and DC exosomatic EDA acquisition circuits while accounting for electrode material-dependent polarization and dynamic interface behavior. An extended Randles cell model is combined with real physiological EDA recordings to dynamically modulate tissue resistance over a 26.6-hour simulation. Both excitation modes use identical constant-current Howland pump architectures, ensuring excitation modality is the sole experimental variable. Simulation results show that DC excitation leads to progressive baseline drift, amplitude compression, and material-dependent degradation of signal fidelity driven by cumulative electrode polarization. These effects intensify with increasing electrode polarization strength and substantially reduce long-term physiological interpretability. In contrast, AC excitation consistently preserves tonic and phasic EDA components, maintains baseline stability, and exhibits robust signal fidelity across all modeled electrode materials despite ongoing interface degradation. Quantitative comparisons against known physiological ground truth confirm lower error and reduced sensitivity to electrode properties for AC-based simulations. These findings provide controlled, long-duration evidence that AC excitation offers practical advantages over DC excitation for stable EDA acquisition in wearable and ambulatory monitoring systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.