ArXiv TLDR

Differentiating Physical and Psychological Stress Using Wearable Physiological Signals and Salivary Cortisol

🐦 Tweet
2604.12671

Ozan Kaya, Nikoletta Athanassopoulou, George G. Malliaras, Marco Vinicio Alban-Paccha

q-bio.QMeess.SP

TLDR

Wearable signals alone struggle to differentiate psychological stress; adding salivary cortisol dramatically improves accuracy for psychological states.

Key contributions

  • Wearable signals alone achieved 77.8% accuracy but struggled with psychological stress and recovery.
  • Integrating salivary cortisol significantly improved overall accuracy to 94.4%.
  • Cortisol boosted recall for psychological stress (50% to 83.3%) and recovery (54.2% to 87.5%).
  • This multimodal approach reduced misclassification between psychological stress and rest.

Why it matters

Wearable devices are popular for health monitoring, but distinguishing different types of stress is complex. This paper demonstrates that physiological signals alone are often insufficient for psychological stress, highlighting the need for additional biological markers like cortisol. The findings support developing more accurate, multimodal stress monitoring systems.

Original Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to assess how wearable physiological signals, alone and combined with salivary cortisol, distinguish physical and psychological stress and their recovery states. Methods: Six healthy adults completed three laboratory sessions on separate days: rest, physical stress (high-intensity cycling), or psychological stress (modified Trier Social Stress Test). Heart rate, heart rate variability, electrodermal activity, and wrist accelerometry were recorded continuously, and salivary cortisol was sampled at five time points. Features were extracted in non-overlapping 10-minute windows and labelled as rest, physical stress, physical recovery, psychological stress, or psychological recovery. A gradient boosting classifier was trained using wearable features alone and with five additional cortisol features per window. Performance was evaluated using leave-one-participant-out cross-validation. Results: Wearable-only classification achieved 77.8% overall accuracy, with high accuracy for physical stress and recovery but frequent misclassification of psychological stress and recovery (recall 50.0% and 54.2%). Including cortisol improved overall accuracy (94.4%), particularly for psychological states, increasing recall to 83.3% and 87.5%. Cortisol also reduced misclassification between psychological stress and rest. Conclusion: Wearable signals alone were insufficient to reliably distinguish psychological stress from rest and recovery. Integrating salivary cortisol improved classification of psychological stress and recovery and reduced confusion with rest, highlighting the value of endocrine context alongside wearable physiology. Significance: These findings support multimodal stress monitoring and motivate larger, ecologically valid studies and scalable alternatives to repeated cortisol sampling.

📬 Weekly AI Paper Digest

Get the top 10 AI/ML arXiv papers from the week — summarized, scored, and delivered to your inbox every Monday.