We should name the channel type eda and the description should be Electrodermal activity. GSR is an outdated term that ideally should also be eliminated from BIDS....

See also Wikipedia on the naming:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodermal_activity?wprov=sfti1

I would suggest we do what BIDS does here. EDA is exploratory data analysis with my prior...

I feel quite strongly we should use EDA. I haven't read GSR in publications in quite a while

(But of course my literature selection is biased)

@cbrnr @sappelhoff any thoughts?

I am not so deeply entrenched in this nomenclature, but if the info in the wikipedia article is valid that "EDA" is a term to standardize the diverse previous terms, then I am all for it.

On the BIDS side we can (given the assumption is true that EDA is the new standard) then deprecate GSR and declare that people use EDA for future datasets.

In MNE-BIDS we can map both EDA and GSR (bids) to EDA (mne), and warn if we do a GSR->EDA mapping, that GSR is deprecated in BIDS.

I'll ask some colleagues of mine who do (or did) peripheral measurements of anything "emotion", maybe they have an opinion

tl;dr: Both terms are used interchangeably, but there seems to be a consensus that EDA is to be preferred these days

So it seems that EDA and GSR are used interchangeably, but GSR mostly sticks around for historical reasons. In many publications, you'll find phrases like "... measured electrodermal activity (EDA; also known as galvanic skin response, GSR)". Like, this sort of double-naming appears to be kind of omnipresent.

I checked how software packages for EDA processing are named:

• LEDALAB
• pyEDA
• NeuroKit2 has an eda package
• there's a Biopack Electrodermal Activity Analysis Module for "EDA/GSR Analysis"

Sensors often come with both both names too:

• iMotions EDA – Electrodermal Activity (GSR)
• BrainProducts GSR Sensor (no mention of EDA here though!)

In summary, my favorite would be eda, but I could live with gsr too – the community will understand both.

I veto against galvanic, though, as this is too generic, and I suppose it won't ring a bell for many folks.

+1 for gsr then, as it'll make our lives a bit easier (we wouldn't have to discuss deprecating gsr in favor of eda at BIDS) and it seems to stick.

Let's do gsr then, this also avoids @agramfort's brain freeze 😅