Volume 54, Issue 3 pp. 374-385
Original Article

Comparison between the AC and DC measurement of electrodermal activity

Oliver Pabst

Corresponding Author

Oliver Pabst

Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Address correspondence to: Oliver Pabst, Postboks 1048, Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
Christian Tronstad

Christian Tronstad

Department of Clinical and Biomedical Engineering, Oslo University Hospital HF, Oslo, Norway

Search for more papers by this author
Sverre Grimnes

Sverre Grimnes

Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Department of Clinical and Biomedical Engineering, Oslo University Hospital HF, Oslo, Norway

Search for more papers by this author
Don Fowles

Don Fowles

Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Ørjan G. Martinsen

Ørjan G. Martinsen

Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Department of Clinical and Biomedical Engineering, Oslo University Hospital HF, Oslo, Norway

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 21 December 2016
Citations: 23

This work has been performed within DIATECH@UiO, a strategic research initiative of the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Oslo.

Abstract

Recording electrodermal activity is a well-accepted physiological measurement for clinical approaches and research. Historically, applying a DC (direct current) signal to the skin to measure the conductance is the most common practice for exogenous recordings. However, this method can be subject to error due to electrode polarization even with “nonpolarizing” electrodes—a problem that can be eliminated with alternating current (AC) methodology. For that reason, Boucsein et al. (2012) called for research demonstrating an AC method that is validated by comparison to standard DC methodology. Additionally, the complex structure of human skin has electrical properties that include both resistance and capacitance, and AC recording enables the measurement of skin susceptance (associated with current flow through capacitors). Finally, AC recording permits the simultaneous recording of the endogenous skin potential. In this paper, the results from a direct comparison between both methods are presented, which has not been reported previously. The results demonstrated excellent agreement between a 20 Hz AC method and a standard DC method, supporting the validity of the AC recording methodology employed. The results also showed that an applied voltage of 0.2 V is sufficient for DC recordings.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.