# Detection of Cognitive Load Modulation by EDA and HRV

Alexis Boffet, Laurent M. Arsac, Vincent Ibanez, Fabien Sauvet, Veronique Arsac

► To cite this version:

Alexis Boffet, Laurent M. Arsac, Vincent Ibanez, Fabien Sauvet, Veronique Arsac. Detection of Cognitive Load Modulation by EDA and HRV. Sensors, 2025, 25 (8), pp.2343. 10.3390/s25082343. hal-05288178

HAL Id: hal-05288178

https://hal.science/hal-05288178v1

Submitted on 29 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Article

# Detection of Cognitive Load Modulation by EDA and HRV

Alexis Boffet 1,2 ID, Laurent M. Arsac 1, Vincent Ibanez 2, Fabien Sauvet 3,4 and Véronique Deschodt-Arsac 1,* ID

**Abstract:** Electrodermal activity (EDA) and heart rate variability (HRV) offer opportunities to grasp critical manifestations of the nervous autonomic system using low-intrusive sensing tools. A key question relies on the capacity to adequately process EDA and HRV signals to extract cognitive load markers, a multifaceted construct with intricate neural networks functioning, where emotions interfere with cognition. Here, 34 participants (20 males, 19.2 ± 1.3 years) were exposed to two-back mental tasking and watching emotionally charged images while recording EDA and HRV. HRV signals were processed using variable frequency complex demodulation (VFCDM) and wavelet packet transform (WPT) to provide high- and low-frequency (HF and LF) markers. Three methods were used to extract EDA indices: VFCDM (EDA<sub>TVSYMP</sub>), WPT (EDA<sub>WPT</sub>), and convex-optimization (EDA<sub>CVX</sub>). Cognitive load and emotion epochs were distinguished by significant differences in NASA-TLX scores, mental fatigue, and stress, on the one hand; and by EDA<sub>CVX</sub> and, remarkably, EDA<sub>TVSYMP</sub> and HF-HRV<sub>VFCDM</sub> on the other hand. A linear mixed-effects model and stepwise backward selection procedure showed that these two markers were main predictors of the NASA-TLX score (cognitive load). The individual perception of cognitive load was finally discriminated by k-means clustering, showing three profiles of autonomic responses relying, respectively, on EDA<sub>TVSYMP</sub>, HF-HRV<sub>VFCDM</sub>, or a mix of these two markers. The existence of EDA-, HRV-, and EDA/HRV-derived profiles might explain why previous attempts that have predominantly employed a single biosignal often remained unconclusive in evaluating the perceived cognitive load, thereby demonstrating the added value of the present approach to monitor mental-related workload in human operators.

**Keywords:** cognitive load; EDA; HRV; 2-back; NASA-TLX

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

check for
updates

Received: 24 February 2025

Revised: 3 April 2025

Accepted: 5 April 2025

Published: 8 April 2025

**Citation:** Boffet, A.; Arsac, L.M.; Ibanez, V.; Sauvet, F.; Deschodt-Arsac, V. Detection of Cognitive Load Modulation by EDA and HRV. *Sensors* **2025**, *25*, 2343. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25082343

**Copyright:** © 2025 by the authors. License MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## 1. Introduction

Human monitoring during a variety of mental tasks has become popular for exploring human performance, well-being, and safety in different contexts. As technological environments become more demanding, and due to the inherent risk of placing human operators in increasingly complex tasks, there is a need to assess the perceived cognitive load to avoid exceeding the user's abilities. In this context, neurophysiological research has provided a growing appreciation that a tight coupling exists between cortical activities in high-level cerebral assemblies sustaining cognitive functions and the activity of the autonomous nervous system, which is reflected in the control of end-effectors, e.g., the sudoral glands and the sinus node. This central and autonomous interplay offers a good opportunity to

<footnote n="1">1 Laboratoire IMS, CNRS, UMR 5218, Université de Bordeaux, Talence, France; alexis.boffet@u-bordeaux.fr (A.B.); laurent.arsac@u-bordeaux.fr (L.M.A.)</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 Thales AVS FRANCE SAS, Mérignac, France; vincent.ibanez@fr.thalesgroup.com</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 Institut de Recherche Biomédicale des Armées (IRBA), Brétigny sur Orge, France; fabien.sauvet@intradef.gouv.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 URP 7330 VIFASOM, Université Paris Cité, Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: veronique.arsac@u-bordeaux.fr</footnote>
use minimally intrusive tools to process the signals emitted by these effectors, which could
lead to an improved understanding of an individual's resilience to the task. To obtain
an overall picture, researchers have captured relevant signals in EDA and HRV sensing,
as the activity of sudoral glands reflects sympathetic control and HRV contains critical
information about autonomic sympathetic and parasympathetic functioning.

The main challenge that researchers are facing is to distinguish emotions from cogni-
tion in these end-effector signals. In fact, both cognitive functioning and emotions have
been shown to interact with the activity of the autonomous nervous system [1,2]. Thus,
although EDA and HRV represent signals of interest when it comes to using low-intrusive
tools, in numerous cases, their respective time courses reflect the dynamics of an intricate
cortical circuit. The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is a key structure for executive functions [3].
PFC exerts inhibitory control on a subcortical circuit (amygdala, hypothalamus, and brain-
stem) involved in emotional regulations. So, according to the neurovisceral integration
model, the peripheral autonomic responses reflect the behavior of intricate cognitive and
emotional responses [4].

EDA, the galvanic skin response that fluctuates over time, has been widely used to explore emotional and attentional states [5]. Several methods have been proposed to distinguish between tonic and phasic responses within the EDA signal [6,7], and, notably, Greco et al. [8] developed a convex optimization-based EDA method, providing a reliable tool to describe autonomic response when varying the affective level of a stimulus. Taking account of the sporadic nature of the sudomotor control, where bursts of neural activity are interspersed by latency phases, the analysis of phasic EDA is useful to draw a picture specially impacted by true periods of sudomotor activity, which has demonstrated particular value in recent years [9]. Posada et al. [10] proposed an index called the Time-Varying Sympathetic index (TVsymp), based on the complex frequency-variable demodulation (VFCDM) of EDA, about which, they demonstrated high sensitivity to distinguish marked autonomic responses to cold pressure, baroreflex unloading (head-up tilt), and cognitive interplay during the interference inhibition Stroop test. The later Stroop test result illustrates that (at least some) markers of EDA clearly reflect the autonomic response to a cognitive activity, with high specificity and sensitivity associated with the VFCDM-derived marker, TVsymp.

As an alternative approach, a recent application of machine-learning classification
methods showed that TVSymp achieved superior scores in classifying emotions in terms
of arousal, valence, and their respective levels [11]. Unfortunately, when it comes to
associating EDA, even TVsymp, with the brain activity linked to perceived cognitive load
and not emotions, experimental studies are scarce, and researchers acknowledge that this
remains a challenge [12,13]. In this vein, Setz et al. [14] aimed to distinguish work-related
stress by introducing EDA markers in statistical classification routines by varying the
presence of known stressors, like temporal pressure and task difficulty, that exceed the
operator's ability. Although the approach is appealing, the detection of work-related stress
rather than cognitive load was the main objective in their study. As summarized by other
researchers, EDA markers might identify global work-related stress induced by an excessive
cognitive load, but assessing cognitive load per se has not received clear evidence [15–17].

Critical information derived from direct brain imaging has helped us gain a more
complete picture of individual perception of cognitive load, but brain mapping needs
much more sophisticated and intrusive methods [18,19]. Rather, sensing heart rate might
provide an additional support to exploring cognitive load. Heart-brain interplay through
the neurovisceral integration model [20] suggests that vagally mediated responses could
add value to cognitive exploration. Yet, HRV analyses failed to offer a clearer picture
than the abovementioned EDA approaches. As cognitive load is a multifaceted construct
that rarely occurs in isolation, one can hardly infer cognition from sudomotor and cardiac
manifestations when analyzed individually. Another limiting aspect may rely on obvious variability in individual ANS activity [8]. One possible scenario could be that autonomic responses concern sudomotor control, cardiac control, or both in different proportions, so that they are dominantly mirrored in EDA or in HRV, which has encouraged experimental attempts combining different biosignals [21–23].

The present study, conducted in young and healthy participants, aimed at generating moderate levels of cognitive load and emotions during two distinctive epochs, while extracting autonomic markers through EDA and HRV analyses. We attempted to identify EDA and HRV markers that are relevant for cognitive load assessment specifically, and for that, we included a clustering analysis to shed light on emergent individual profiles.

## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. Ethical Approval

The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee, the CERSTAPS (Approval No. IRB00012476-2023-27-03-241) and conformed to the standards set by the Declaration of Helsinki (2024 revised version).

### 2.2. Participants

Forty-seven healthy sport students (31 males, 18.9 ± 1.5 years) gave their written informed consent to participate in the experiment that was part of their academic curriculum and for which they received credits. Only 34 participants (20 males, 19.2 ± 1.3 years) were selected for analyses due to corrupted signals linked to technical problems and detected epochs of cardiac resonant during the acquisition of ECG signals. None of participants reported neurological and physiological disorders, nor did they report uncorrected vision problems. Participants were asked to avoid alcohol and caffeinated beverages for the 24 h preceding the experiment, and to abstain from heavy physical activity.

### 2.3. Experimental Procedure

The experiments were conducted in a quiet room with a controlled ambient temperature of 20–22 °C. Throughout the entire experimental procedure, participants were seated on a chair positioned at a visual distance of approximately 0.6 m from a 19-inch computer monitor. The participants were exposed to three consecutive conditions (Figure 1): Baseline consisted of quietly watching an animal documentary for 10 min; EMOT consisted of viewing a 10-min slideshow made of 40 emotionally labeled images from the IAPS (International Affective Picture System) database; and COG consisted of 10 min of 2-back tasking with prior (not analyzed) 2-min familiarization with the task.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Experimental design. VAS-MF, Visual Analogic Scale of Mental Fatigue; VAS-S, Visual Analogic Scale of Stress; NASA-TLX, questionnaire of workload perceived.</figcaption></figure>
## 2.4. Emotion (EMOT)

The task developed to induce various emotional responses contained images from the IAPS image bank [24] with normative ratings for valence and arousal levels of emotion [25], with a valence ranging from unpleasant (unhappy, bored, hopeless, etc.) to pleasant (happy, satisfied, hopeful, etc.) and an arousal ranging from not aroused (calm, relaxed, asleep, etc.) to highly aroused (excited, stimulated, wide awake, etc.). In the context of the present study, images were specifically selected and divided into 4 distinct groups by using a method inspired from Yun et al. [26]:

Step 1: Minimize the gender effect.

Images that had a mean valence rating difference between female and male participants of less than 1 and a mean arousal rating difference between female and male participants of less than 0.8 were selected. This resulted in 735 pictures.

Step 2: Build picture groups eliciting different emotions.

For this, pictures were filtered according to their valence and arousal values and according to their standard deviation for the respective category (std < 2 for valence, std < 2.23 for arousal).

* Positive Valence, High Arousal (PVHA)—For PVHA, pictures with valence and arousal ratings greater than 6 were selected. This resulted in 41 pictures. Pictures with high standard deviation were excluded to result in a set of 27 pictures.

* Positive Valence, Low Arousal (PVLA)—For PVLA, pictures with a valence greater than 6 and an arousal state less than 4 were selected. This resulted in 46 pictures. Pictures with high standard deviation were excluded to result in a set of 29 pictures.

* Negative Valence, High Arousal (NVHA)—For NVHA, pictures with a valence lower than 4.3 and an arousal state greater than 6 were selected. This resulted in 54 pictures. Pictures with high standard deviation were excluded to result in a set of 30 pictures.

* Negative Valence, Low Arousal (NVLA)—For NVLA, pictures with a valence lower than 4.3 and an arousal state lower than 4 were selected. This resulted in 30 pictures. Pictures with high standard deviation were excluded to result in a set of 25 pictures.

Step 3: Final image selection.

For this, pictures containing explicit violence and sexually explicit pictures were excluded. Finally, 10 images were randomly selected in each group, resulting in the following:

* PVHA—images 1650, 4608, 4643, 4660, 5621, 5629, 8030, 8158, 8191, and 8206;

* PVLA—images 1333, 1419, 1670, 1812, 2035, 2358, 2392, 2500, 2515, and 2598;

* NVHA—images 1300, 1930, 3500, 3530, 6231, 6260, 6563, 8485, 9910, and 9630;

* NVLA—images 2039, 2271, 2280, 2312, 2410, 2491, 2520, 2752, 7013, and 7078.

Step 4: Design the slideshow.

Each of the groups of images obtained was divided into two blocks of 5 images. From these 8 blocks of images, a slideshow was constructed as follows: (PVHA-1; PVLA-1; NVHA-1; NVLA-1; PVHA-2; PVLA-2; NVHA-2; NVLA-2).

Each stimulus (image) was displayed at the center of the screen for 5 s, with an inter-stimulus interval of 10 s, during which a cross (+sign) was displayed on the center of the screen. Participants were instructed to stay focused on the screen during the entire slide show; they were also told that no action on their part is required during the entire task.

## 2.5. Cognitive Task (COG)

The 2-back version of n-back task, a task widely used to impose mental demand by involving working memory, was used in the present study [27]. During 2-back tasking (COG), the participant had to press “Enter” on the keyboard each time a letter was identical to the letter displayed 2 positions earlier. Each letter was pseudo-randomly displayed at
the center of the screen for 500 ms, with an inter-trial interval of 2500 ms. The stimulus set comprised 15 letters: A, B, C, D, E, H, I, K, L, M, O, P, R, S, and T. Performance metrics (reaction time, omissions, success rate, and errors) were recorded during all the tasks. The reaction times obtained on the n-back test averaged 635 ms ± 176 ms, with an accuracy rate of 76.8%. This result highlights participant engagement, as confirmed by the cognitive load level expressed through the NASA-TLX scores (Table 1).

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Comparisons of self-reported stress, mental fatigue, and cognitive load.</caption><thead><tr><th>Metrics</th><th>Post Baseline<br>T2</th><th>Post EMOT<br>T3</th><th>Post COG<br>T4</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VAS Mental Fatigue</td><td>24 (9–37)</td><td>37 (18–54) *</td><td>49 (32–69) ***,###</td></tr><tr><td>VAS Stress</td><td>6 (0–11)</td><td>11 (0–18)</td><td>19 (5–34) ***,#</td></tr><tr><td>NASA_TLX Global</td><td>28 (18–35)</td><td>46 (29–67) **</td><td>71 (59–82) ***,###</td></tr><tr><td>NASA_TLX Mental Demand</td><td>29 (20–40)</td><td>50 (30–80) **</td><td>79 (70–90) ***,###</td></tr><tr><td>NASA_TLX Effort</td><td>19 (10–20)</td><td>37 (20–60) **</td><td>67 (50–90) ***,###</td></tr></tbody></table>

Values are displayed as median (quartile 1–quartile 3). *, **, and *** correspond to a difference with Baseline condition with a *p* < 0.05, *p* < 0.01, or *p* < 0.001, respectively. # and ### correspond to a difference with EMOT condition with a *p* < 0.05 or *p* < 0.001, respectively.

## 2.6. Stress, Mental Fatigue, and Cognitive Load

Stress, mental fatigue, and cognitive load were assessed before and after each condition (Baseline, EMOT, and COG). Slider scales from 1 to 100 without visible graduations were used to assess self-reported levels of stress and mental fatigue, where 1 means absence of and 100 means extreme perceived levels of stress and fatigue. To clarify how scoring works, definitions of stress and fatigue were priorly displayed using the following sentences: "Stress is a normal physiological response of the body to an external event or something perceived as threatening"; and "Mental fatigue refers to an inability to perform cognitive tasks and is distinct from fatigue caused by lack of sleep. For example, after prolonged hours of work or exams, one may experience difficulties in concentration and thinking".

Participants completed a validated French version of the NASA-TLX [28] to evaluate the cognitive load thanks to the global score. The NASA-TLX evaluates six key dimensions: mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, performance, effort, and frustration level [29]. We went through components of the global score to focus on mental demand and effort as dimensions specifically affected by cognitive tasking.

## 2.7. Electrodermal Activity

EDA was recorded (sampling frequency 1 kHz, 12 bits resolution) using the setup provided by ADInstruments (Dunedin, New Zealand), including two Ag-AgCl electrodes linked to the PowerLab 8/35 device and a fully isolated galvanic skin response amplifier with low voltage, 75 Hz AC excitation (FE116, ADInstruments). The electrodes were placed on distal phalanges of the index and middle fingers of the left hand. Raw EDA data were visually inspected for noise linked to unexpected motion-period identification principally linked to motion. Signals with more than 2% corrupted data were discarded.

For the main purpose of the present study (obtaining the finest detection of the cognitive load), the phasic component of EDA was extracted by using different methods based either on convex optimization (cvTEDA), variable frequency complex demodulation (VFCDM), or continuous wavelet (packet) transform (WPT). The cvTEDA algorithm [8] formulates EDA signal decomposition as an optimization problem to separate a slow varying tonic component and a more rapidly fluctuating phasic component. Here, we used the online available cvTEDA algorithm [30], with the following default parameters: α = 0.008, τ1 = 0.7 s, τ2 = 2 s, γ = 0.01, and sparse QR solver = "quadprog" (see [8] for more
details). To avoid excessive computation time, EDA (1kHz) was downsampled at 2 Hz
before deconvolution by cvx. The time-dependent amplitude of the phasic signal obtained
was finally computed by using Hilbert transform, resulting in a sympathetic index called
EDA<sub>CVX</sub> here.

VFCDM was used in combination with Hilbert transform to extract the amplitude
of the EDA signal in a specific bandwidth of the whole EDA signal. The main asset of
VFCDM relies on the dynamical adjustment of the central frequency of main decomposed
components. By adding those components demonstrating the greatest changes in amplitude
when controlled sympathetic arousals are experimentally induced (0.08 to 0.24 Hz), Posada-
Quintero et al. obtained a sympathetic index called TVsymp [10]. We obtained this index
the same way here, starting with 2 Hz downsampled and high-pass filtered, (0.01 Hz) as
recommended. For clarity and because there are many EDA and HRV indices computed in
the present study, TVsymp is called EDA<sub>TVSYMP</sub> here.

Wavelet packet transform (WPT) is widely used to extract time and frequency in-
formation simultaneously from physiological signals. WPT offers a better resolution for
each computed frequency band than the often-used discrete wavelet transform (DWT)
because, in DWT, the number of datasets is halved by the transform at each level [31].
We used level 3 of WPT (WPT3) on 1Hz resampled raw EDA signal, which provided 8
components partitioning the 0.5 Hz (Nyquist) bandwidth; and we added components 2,
3, and 4, which covered the frequency range of 0.0625–0.25 Hz, close to TVsymp. Hilbert
transform provided the amplitude of this component, which served to obtain a sympathetic
index called EDA<sub>WPT3</sub> (see below) here.

2.8. *Heart Rate Variability*

HRV was obtained from successive interbeat time intervals identified in raw ECG
signals by Rpeak-to-Rpeak (RR) distance. ECG was recorded by the PowerLab 8/35
(ADInstrument, Dunedin, New Zealand) at a sampling frequency of 1 kHz, with 50 Hz
Notch filter, using three electrodes and a bio-amplifier (FE132, ADInstruments). The
collected RR time series were exported to MATLAB 2021a (Matworks, Natick, MA, USA)
for further analysis, using available functions and custom-designed routines. RR series were
visually inspected for artifacts. Occasional ectopic beats (irregularity of the heart rhythm
involving extra or skipped heartbeats, such as extrasystole and consecutive compensatory
pause) were replaced by 2 Hz cubic-spline interpolated adjacent RR interval values. Signals
with more than 2 percent of corrupted data were discarded.

To compare them with the previous literature, classic HRV indices were computed: in
the temporal domain, RMSSD on RR series; in the frequency domain, on 4Hz-resampled
RR series; and low-frequency (LF) and high-frequency (HF) power after obtaining power
spectral density by discrete Fourier transform (DFT) and corresponding bandwidths of
0.04–0.15 Hz and 0.15–0.4 Hz.

For the purpose of the present study, we also applied VFCDM and WPT to the
1Hz-resampled RR series. Each method decomposes HRV into distinct frequency bands
/components/ (components) within the range 0 to Nyquist frequency (0.5 Hz). Level 3 of WPT (WPT3), us-
ing Daubechies4 as a wavelet form, extracted eight 0.0625 Hz wide components with
equal resolution. To obtain a sympathetic index, components 2 and 3 were added
(0.0625–0.1875 Hz); and to obtain a parasympathetic index, components 4, 5, 6, and 7
were added (0.1875–0.4375 Hz) [32]. VFCDM provided eight components covering the
range 0–0.5 Hz (Nyquist). Component 2, centered on 0.12 Hz, was used to obtain a sympa-
thetic index, and components 3, 4, and 5, centered on 0.2, 0.28, and 0.36 Hz, respectively,
were used to provide a parasympathetic index. For all computed components, Hilbert
transform provided the time-varying amplitude of the component.
Finally, to obtain a set of variables able to describe the functioning of the autonomous nervous system during each of the 3 experimental conditions, the fluctuating amplitudes obtained by Hilbert transform for the above-described deconvolution and time-frequency analyses were averaged over the duration of each experimental condition: Baseline, EMOT, and COG conditions.

Hence, the statistical analysis was performed on the set of variables $EDA_{CVX}$, $EDA_{TVSYMP}$, $EDA_{WPT3}$, $LF_{VFCDM}$, $HF_{VFCDM}$, $LF_{WPT3}$, and $HF_{WPT3}$; the classic variables RMSSD, $LF_{DFT}$, and $HF_{DFT}$; and the self-reported variables VAS Mental Fatigue, VAS Stress, NASA_TLX Global, NASA_TLX Mental Demand, and NASA_TLX Effort.

## 2.9. Statistical Analysis

Before testing the differences between each condition, the assumptions of normality and sphericity were checked using the Shapiro-Wilk normality test and Mauchly's test of sphericity, respectively. In the case of a violation of the sphericity assumption, a Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied.

If the assumptions were met, a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA was performed, followed by multiple pairwise paired t-tests. In the case of assumption violation, the alternative non-parametric Friedman test was used, followed by multiple pairwise paired Conover tests. All resulting p-values were then adjusted using the Bonferroni correction.

Moreover, a linear mixed-effects model was implemented using the lme4 package to assess the influence of physiological markers on cognitive load (NASA-TLX), with subject-specific random effects included to account for inter-individual variability.

The model initially incorporated the following predictors: $EDA_{CVX}$, $EDA_{TVSYMP}$, $EDA_{WPT3}$, $HF_{VFCDM}$, and $HF_{WPT3}$, obtained in each of the three conditions (Baseline, EMOT, and COG).

$$ \text{NASA-TLX\_Global} \sim \text{EDA}_{\text{CVX}} + \text{EDA}_{\text{TVSYMP}} + \text{EDA}_{\text{WPT3}} + \text{HF}_{\text{VFCDM}} + \text{HF}_{\text{WPT3}} + 1 | \text{subject} $$

Model convergence was assessed using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) criterion. Multicollinearity was evaluated via the variance inflation factor (VIF), leading to the exclusion of $HF_{WPT3}$ (VIF > 10) to prevent collinearity issues. A stepwise backward selection approach was applied to retain only significant predictors.

The final model reported fixed-effect estimates with corresponding standard errors (SE), t-values, 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values. The random effect variance for subjects and residual variance were also reported to assess individual variability in NASA-TLX scores. The significance threshold was set at $p < 0.05$.

To explore individual responses to cognitive demand, a k-means clustering analysis was performed on data collected during the COG condition, using the most relevant metrics identified from the linear mixed-effects model. The Elbow Method and the average silhouette width were applied to determine the optimal number of clusters.

All statistical analysis were performed under the RStudio software (Version 2023.12.1+402).

# 3. Results

## 3.1. Self-Reported Stress, Mental Fatigue, and Cognitive Load

During EMOT and COG, participants reported levels of mental fatigue and cognitive load above those reported during Baseline (Table 1).

Interestingly, NASA-TLX results showed that COG elicited higher cognitive load than EMOT. This holds for both subdimensions, mental demand and effort (Table 1), which strongly rely on cognitive load in our condition.
## 3.2. Physiological Indices

### 3.2.1. Electrodermal Activity (EDA)

All indices derived from phasic EDA increased during COG when compared to Baseline and EMOT (Table 2), thus pointing to a heightened EDA response especially in COG condition.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Comparisons of physiological indices extracted from EDA and HRV.</caption><thead><tr><th>Metrics</th><th>Units</th><th>Baseline</th><th>EMOT</th><th>COG</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>EDA<sub>CVX</sub></td><td>n.u</td><td>1.05 ± 0.20</td><td>1.05 ± 0.20</td><td>1.26 ± 0.28 **,###</td></tr><tr><td>EDA<sub>TVSYMP</sub></td><td>n.u</td><td>0.80 ± 0.13</td><td>0.82 ± 0.12</td><td>1.04 ± 0.10 **,###</td></tr><tr><td>EDA<sub>WPT3</sub></td><td>n.u</td><td>0.94 ± 0.14</td><td>0.90 ± 0.17</td><td>1.04 ± 0.11 **,###</td></tr><tr><td>RMSSD</td><td>ms<sup>2</sup></td><td>45 ± 16</td><td>48 ± 18</td><td>48 ± 18</td></tr><tr><td>LF<sub>DFT</sub></td><td>ms<sup>2</sup></td><td>516 ± 308</td><td>693 ± 466</td><td>689 ± 468</td></tr><tr><td>HF<sub>DFT</sub></td><td>ms<sup>2</sup></td><td>310 ± 269</td><td>371 ± 284</td><td>329 ± 261</td></tr><tr><td>LF/HF<sub>DFT</sub></td><td>n.u</td><td>2.5 ± 2.2</td><td>2.5 ± 1.7</td><td>2.74 ± 1.65</td></tr><tr><td>LF<sub>VFCDM</sub></td><td>n.u</td><td>1.24 ± 0.04</td><td>1.22 ± 0.04</td><td>1.24 ± 0.03</td></tr><tr><td>HF<sub>VFCDM</sub></td><td>n.u</td><td>1.28 ± 0.05</td><td>1.28 ± 0.06</td><td>1.24 ± 0.04 **,##</td></tr><tr><td>LF<sub>WPT3</sub></td><td>n.u</td><td>1.21 ± 0.05</td><td>1.20 ± 0.05</td><td>1.22 ± 0.03</td></tr><tr><td>HF<sub>WPT3</sub></td><td>n.u</td><td>1.27 ± 0.05</td><td>1.27 ± 0.05</td><td>1.23 ± 0.5 *,#</td></tr></tbody></table>

n.u: normalized units. Values are displayed as mean ± standard deviation. *, **, and *** correspond to a difference with Baseline condition with a *p* < 0.05, *p* < 0.01, or *p* < 0.001, respectively. #, ##, and ### correspond to a difference with EMOT condition with a *p* < 0.05, *p* < 0.01, or *p* < 0.001, respectively.

### 3.2.2. Heart Rate Variability (HRV)

As a main observation, not all HRV indices highlighted a specific response to COG; only HF-HRV markers showed a significative difference between COG and EMOT (Table 2). More explicitly, HF-HRV indices obtained by using VFCDM and WPT3 methods (HF<sub>VFCDM</sub> and HF<sub>WPT3</sub>) showed lower values during COG, while RMSSD and DFT-derived indices that are also employed classically to describe the vagal behavior did not reach statistical significance (Table 2).

## 3.3. Linear Mixed-Effects Model (LMM)

Considering the NASA-TLX score to be a dependent variable, used here as a marker of cognitive load, the linear mixed-effects model included significant markers of COG: EDA<sub>CVX</sub>, EDA<sub>TVSYMP</sub>, EDA<sub>WPT3</sub>, HF<sub>VFCDM</sub>, HF<sub>WPT3</sub>, and random effects for subjects. The model showed good convergence, with a REML criterion value of 881.8. After verifying multicollinearity (VIF > 10), the predictor HF<sub>WPT3</sub> was excluded from the model due to potential collinearity issues. A stepwise backward selection procedure was employed to obtain a parsimonious model by successively removing non-significant and poor predictors (EDA<sub>CVX</sub> and EDA<sub>WPT3</sub>).

The fixed effects indicate that EDA<sub>TVSYMP</sub> was positively associated with NASA-TLX (β = 13.80, SE = 2.00, t = 6.89 95% CI: [9.82, 17.71], *p* < 0.001), and HF<sub>VFCDM</sub> showed a significant negative association with NASA-TLX (β = −6.24, SE = 2.23, t = −2.79 95% CI: [−10.63, −1.85], *p* = 0.003). The random effect variance for subjects was 100.2 (SD = 10.01), which suggests moderate inter-individual variability in NASA-TLX scores, with residual variance of 300.4 (SD = 17.33). The correlation between the fixed effects was low (0.350 between EDA<sub>TVSYMP</sub> and HF<sub>VFCDM</sub>), indicating little multicollinearity between the predictors.

Taken together, these results suggest that both a high sympathetic activation reflected in EDA<sub>TVSYMP</sub> and a low parasympathetic activity reflected in HF<sub>VFCDM</sub> largely explain the individual level of perceived workload.
### 3.4. *Analyses of Interindividual Responses*

To further explore how the abovementioned relevant EDA and HF-HRV markers separately or collectively reflect the perceived cognitive load, we attempted to characterize individual responses, an approach also guided by the fact that each variable obviously spread out from its averaged value, reinforcing the idea of different typical links between cognitive load and specific marker(s). A k-means clustering analysis reveals that autonomic profiles might be apprehended through three clusters. The clustering explained a significant proportion of the total variance, as indicated by a ratio of between-cluster sum of squares (between SS) to total sum of squares (total SS) of 60.3%. The total within-cluster sum of squares (WCSS) across all clusters was 80.23, indicating tight clustering within groups. This value was substantially lower when using three clusters (80.23) compared to two clusters (108.61), indicating that the clustering solution with three clusters provides more compact and homogeneous groups. To validate the reliability of the three-cluster solution, the Elbow Method and the average silhouette width were applied, and both method confirmed the suitability of the three-cluster results.

Cluster 2 exhibits the highest variability (WCSS = 30.28), indicating that the points assigned to this cluster are more dispersed around their centroid compared to the other clusters.

Clusters 1 and 3 show lower variability (WCSS of 24.54 and 25.42, respectively), suggesting more compact groups compared to cluster 2. The autonomic profile of the participants grouped in the same cluster provided important information. Cluster 1 is composed of 39 individuals exhibiting a moderate negative $EDA_{TVSYMP}$ values and high positive $HF_{VFCDM}$ values. This cluster represents participants with elevated heart rate variability (HRV). Cluster 2 (24 individuals) points to both negative $EDA_{TVSYMP}$ and $HF_{VFCDM}$, with the strongest negative $HF_{VFCDM}$ values. This cluster shows participants with reduced physiological variability. Cluster 3 (39 individuals) puts emphasis on the highest value of the $EDA_{TVSYMP}$, instead, with a moderate negative value of $HF_{VFCDM}$. Such results could indicate that neither EDA alone nor HRV alone is able to reflect the perceived cognitive load with acceptable reliability in a large population.

## 4. Discussion

Cognitive load and emotional responses are hard to distinguish at end-effector levels because of common neural networks modulating the autonomic nervous system. The main contribution of the present study is reliable information obtained by extracting autonomic markers in both EDA and HRV responses. In our conditions, relevant markers emerged from frequency-domain analyses, especially when using Variable Frequency Complex Demodulation of EDA and HRV signals. A clustering analysis capitalizing on statistically relevant markers shows that cognitive load is better reflected in levels of $EDA_{TVSYMP}$ and $HF_{HRV_{VFCDM}}$, respectively, a sympathetic marker of sudomotor responses and a vagal marker of heart rate modulations. The extraction of three clusters among our participants, based on these two markers after stepwise backward selection procedure, might explain why some previous studies using EDA or HRV alone have remained inconclusive about which autonomic signature can be associated with cognitive load [23,33]. Although physiological indices have been widely investigated in the laboratory to analyze responses to cognitive load, their application in real-world domains, such as aeronautics [34] and automotive environments [35], remains challenging. These limitations are primarily attributed to the difficulty of assessing workload in real time. To overcome these difficulties, combining $EDA_{TVSYMP}$ and $HF_{HRV_{VFCDM}}$ may constitute an interesting framework to obtain an individual profile of the perceived cognitive load during tasking, which has obvious applications for monitoring human operators.
As an experimental attempt here, young and healthy participants were exposed to a
mental cognitive task (COG) and then to emotionally relevant pictures (EMOT). As the first
step in the present study, self-reported levels of perceived cognitive load were significantly
higher during COG than during EMOT conditions, as expected. This result holds for two
subdimensions of NASA-TLX: mental fatigue and effort (Table 1). By comparison, stress
did not differ between COG and EMOTION (Table 1). These results suggest that cognitive
load and emotions were perceived distinctively by our participants, and they pave the way
to interpreting this distinction in autonomic markers captured in EDA and HRV. It should
be added that individual scores obtained in NASA-TLX, as well as in the stress test, varied
substantially, although our participants had quite similar age and health status. NASA-TLX
scores ranged from 46 (high load) to 81 (very high load), meaning that performing the same
cognitive task (two-back) certainly requires different cognitive resources in an individual
way. Such variability in psychophysiological responses to cognitive tasking has already
been observed in the literature, and typically encourages a more detailed exploration of
individual behavior [36].

Aligned with the distinction of self-reported cognitive load and stress after COG and EMOT, physiological markers derived from time-varying frequency analyses of EDA and HRV during the task exhibited different changes when COG is compared to EMOT. EDA<sub>TVSYMP</sub>, EDA<sub>CVX</sub>, and EDA<sub>WPT3</sub> all indicated a more marked sympathetic increase during COG when compared to EMOT (Table 2). Given that previous usage of EDA to characterize the cognitive load in the literature has not provided such clear indications [15,16], the superiority of EDA markers extracted from the time-frequency domain analysis already suggested [10] could represent a first relevant step in addressing sympathetically driven responses to the perceived cognitive load in humans.

The HRV-derived behavior during COG and EMOT results also placed emphasis on time-frequency signal processing. Among the markers extracted from HRV, the distinction between COG and EMOT was highlighted when using VFCDM and WPT tools. The (more) classical Fourier-derived markers of HRV, as well as RMSSD, failed to distinguish COG from EMOT, thus reinforcing the relevance of extracting time-frequency markers. Because vagal and sympathetic heart rate modulations occur at different frequencies, the mode decomposition of HRV provides a more detailed picture of autonomic responses. In our conditions, greater relevance was observed in HF-HRV markers (HF<sub>VFCDM</sub> and HF<sub>WPT3</sub>) than in LF-HRV markers. As the HF component accounts dominantly (although not exclusively) for vagal (parasympathetic) autonomic modulations of heart rate, it is concluded that n-back cognitive tasking, as used here, provides main adaptations in vagally mediated responses. In short, sympathetic responses derived from VFCDM applied to EDA in combination with concomitant vagal changes observed in HF-HRV<sub>VFCDM</sub> provided a relevant picture to assess cognitive load in this study.

Although recent research also indicated that CVX and VFCDM are tools allowing EDA-derived indices to match with a change in cognitive load [15,16], the authors underlined obvious difficulty when it comes to further investigating individual responses [37]. For such a purpose, in our study, we introduced the additional sensing of HRV, which seemed to bring relevant additional information thanks to assessments of the cardiac vagal response. The marker HF-HRV, extracted from HRV by using VFCDM, could add substantial robustness when it comes to exploring further details, as observed here when applying stepwise backward selection to obtain a parsimonious model by successively removing non-significant and poor predictors of the NASA-TLX score. As an additional marker to EDA<sub>TVSYMP</sub>, HF<sub>VFCDM</sub> emerged as a significant predictor of NASA scores, highlighting the relevance of these physiological measures for predicting performance outcomes. This result aligned with the importance of multi-sensor setups suggested by some authors to study
physiological behavioral adaptations to complex tasks [23,33,38] and motivated a k-means clustering analysis that indeed revealed different autonomic profiles. A clustering solution validated by the Elbow Method provided three compact and homogeneous groups among our participants. Typical levels in HF-HRV<sub>VFCDM</sub> and EDA<sub>TVSYMP</sub> were associated with each group, pointing to people characterized by their high parasympathetic (HF-HRV) level and low sympathetic (EDA) level during COG, or by contrast, high sympathetic (EDA) together with a moderate vagal status; the third group demonstrated a weak autonomic status during COG characterized by low sympathetic (EDA) and very low parasympathetic (HF-HRV). To our knowledge, few studies have demonstrated the existence of clusters with distinct autonomic profiles in response to a cognitive task. By using a k-means clustering approach based on pupillary dilation dynamics, a recent study [39] identified two distinct autonomic response profiles. While this study provides valuable insights, it differs from ours in its methodological approach. Instead of conducting a preliminary analysis to identify the most sensitive markers for detecting cognitive load, it first differentiates clusters based on pupillary dynamics and subsequently analyzes the autonomic characteristics of each group.

This study is not without limitations. While the n-back task is validated and widely used in the literature, it is subject to certain biases, including inter-individual variability and the strategic approaches adopted by participants. These factors could contribute to the variability observed in autonomic responses in our results.

Although the model we used here provides valuable insights, it assumes a linear relationship between the predictors and the dependent variable. Given the complex dynamics of physiological signals, the relationship between variables could be more complex. A larger population would allow us to explore other nonlinear modeling approaches and possibly to generalize the model by performing a cross-validation procedure.

In conclusion, as mentioned above and as a main finding here, the existence of phenotypical autonomic behavior during a cognitive task underlines the real need to explore both EDA and HRV characteristics when using low-intrusive human monitoring. Extracting the autonomic manifestations at two end-effector levels could allow for a more robust interpretation of the perceived cognitive load, especially when VFCDM-derived markers are computed because they seem more prompt to reflect cognitive load than emotions during mental work conditions.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, A.B. and V.D.-A.; methodology, A.B., L.M.A. and V.D.-A.; software, A.B., L.M.A. and V.D.-A.; validation, A.B., L.M.A., V.I., F.S. and V.D.-A.; formal analysis, A.B. and V.D.-A.; investigation, A.B.; resources, A.B., L.M.A., V.I., F.S. and V.D.-A.; data curation, A.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B., L.M.A., V.I., F.S. and V.D.-A.; writing—review and editing, A.B., L.M.A., V.I., F.S. and V.D.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by a CIFRE grant, No. 2022/0869, which was awarded by the Association Nationale de la Recherche et de la Technologie (ANRT) to THALES AVS FRANCE SAS in support of the work of Alexis Boffet, PhD student.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The present study was approved by an ethics committee, the CERSTAPS (Approval No. IRB00012476-2023-27-03-241), and conformed to the standards set by the Declaration of Helsinki.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The dataset generated and analyzed during the current study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
**Conflicts of Interest:** Authors Alexis Boffet and Vincent Ibanez were employed by the company Thales AVS. They have no financial conflicts of interest with the results or conclusions of this work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

## Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

<table><tr><td>VFCDM</td><td>variable frequency complex demodulation</td></tr><tr><td>CVX</td><td>Convex Optimization Approach</td></tr><tr><td>WPT3</td><td>wavelet packet transform level 3</td></tr><tr><td>EDA</td><td>electrodermal activity</td></tr><tr><td>EDA<sub>TVSYMP</sub></td><td>time-varying index of sympathetic activity obtained via VFCDM method</td></tr><tr><td>EDA<sub>CVX</sub></td><td>time-varying index of sympathetic activity obtained via CVX method</td></tr><tr><td>EDA<sub>WPT</sub></td><td>time-varying index of sympathetic activity obtained via WPT3 method</td></tr><tr><td>NASA-TLX</td><td>NASA Task Load Index</td></tr><tr><td>VAS</td><td>Visual Analogic Scale</td></tr><tr><td>HRV</td><td>Heart Rate Variability</td></tr><tr><td>RMSSD</td><td>Root Mean Square of Successive Difference</td></tr><tr><td>LF</td><td>low frequency</td></tr><tr><td>HF</td><td>high frequency</td></tr><tr><td>RR</td><td>Rpeak-to-Rpeak</td></tr><tr><td>ANS</td><td>autonomic nervous system</td></tr></table>

## References

1. Sakaki, M.; Ueno, T.; Ponzio, A.; Harley, C.W.; Mather, M. Emotional Arousal Amplifies Competitions across Goal-Relevant Representation: A Neurocomputational Framework. *Cognition* **2019**, *187*, 108–125. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

2. Wei, Q.; Bai, T.; Chen, Y.; Ji, G.; Hu, X.; Xie, W.; Xiong, Z.; Zhu, D.; Wei, L.; Hu, P.; et al. The Changes of Functional Connectivity Strength in Electroconvulsive Therapy for Depression: A Longitudinal Study. *Front. Neurosci.* **2018**, *12*, 661. [CrossRef]

3. Friedman, N.P.; Robbins, T.W. The Role of Prefrontal Cortex in Cognitive Control and Executive Function. *Neuropsychopharmacology* **2022**, *47*, 72–89. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

4. Thayer, J.F.; Lane, R.D. Claude Bernard and the Heart-Brain Connection: Further Elaboration of a Model of Neurovisceral Integration. *Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.* **2009**, *33*, 81–88. [CrossRef]

5. Boucsein, W. *Electrodermal Activity*; Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-1-4614-1125-3.

6. Bach, D.R.; Flandin, G.; Friston, K.J.; Dolan, R.J. Modelling Event-Related Skin Conductance Responses. *Int. J. Psychophysiol.* **2010**, *75*, 349–356. [CrossRef]

7. Bach, D.R.; Flandin, G.; Friston, K.J.; Dolan, R.J. Time-Series Analysis for Rapid Event-Related Skin Conductance Responses. *J. Neurosci. Methods* **2009**, *184*, 224–234. [CrossRef]

8. Greco, A.; Valenza, G.; Lanata, A.; Scilingo, E.; Citi, L. cvxEDA: A Convex Optimization Approach to Electrodermal Activity Processing. *IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.* **2016**, *63*, 797–804. [CrossRef]

9. Posada-Quintero, H.F.; Chon, K.H. Innovations in Electrodermal Activity Data Collection and Signal Processing: A Systematic Review. *Sensors* **2020**, *20*, 479. [CrossRef]

10. Posada-Quintero, H.F.; Florian, J.P.; Orjuela-Cañón, Á.D.; Chon, K.H. Highly Sensitive Index of Sympathetic Activity Based on Time-Frequency Spectral Analysis of Electrodermal Activity. *Am. J. Physiol.-Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.* **2016**, *311*, R582–R591. [CrossRef]

11. Veeranki, Y.R.; Ganapathy, N.; Swaminathan, R.; Posada-Quintero, H. Comparison of Electrodermal Activity Signal Decomposition Techniques for Emotion Recognition. *IEEE Access* **2024**, *12*, 19952–19966. [CrossRef]

12. Shi, Y.; Ruiz, N.; Taib, R.; Choi, E.; Chen, F. Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) as an Index of Cognitive Load. In Proceedings of the CHI ’07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 28 April–3 May 2007; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 2651–2656.

13. Mehler, B.; Reimer, B.; Coughlin, J.F. Sensitivity of Physiological Measures for Detecting Systematic Variations in Cognitive Demand from a Working Memory Task: An on-Road Study across Three Age Groups. *Hum. Factors* **2012**, *54*, 396–412. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14. Setz, C.; Arnrich, B.; Schumm, J.; La Marca, R.; Troster, G.; Ehlert, U. Discriminating Stress From Cognitive Load Using a Wearable EDA Device. *IEEE Trans. Inform. Technol. Biomed.* **2010**, *14*, 410–417. [CrossRef]
15. Vanneste, P.; Raes, A.; Morton, J.; Bombeke, K.; Van Acker, B.B.; Larmuseau, C.; Depaepe, F.; Van den Noortgate, W. Towards Measuring Cognitive Load through Multimodal Physiological Data. *Cogn. Technol. Work.* **2021**, *23*, 567–585. [CrossRef]

16. Charles, R.L.; Nixon, J. Measuring Mental Workload Using Physiological Measures: A Systematic Review. *Appl. Ergon.* **2019**, *74*, 221–232. [CrossRef]

17. Buchwald, M.; Kupinski, S.; Bykowski, A.; Marcinkowska, J.; Ratajczyk, D.; Jukiewicz, M. Electrodermal Activity as a Measure of Cognitive Load: A Methodological Approach. In Proceedings of the 2019 Signal Processing: Algorithms, Architectures, Arrangements, and Applications (SPA), Poznan, Poland, 18–20 September 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 175–179.

18. Mencarelli, L.; Neri, F.; Momi, D.; Menardi, A.; Rossi, S.; Rossi, A.; Santarnecchi, E. Stimuli, Presentation Modality, and Load-Specific Brain Activity Patterns during n-Back Task. *Hum. Brain Mapp.* **2019**, *40*, 3810–3831. [CrossRef]

19. Miri Ashtiani, S.N.; Daliri, M.R. Identification of Cognitive Load-Dependent Activation Patterns Using Working Memory Task-Based fMRI at Various Levels of Difficulty. *Sci. Rep.* **2023**, *13*, 16476. [CrossRef]

20. Thayer, J.F.; Hansen, A.L.; Saus-Rose, E.; Johnsen, B.H. Heart Rate Variability, Prefrontal Neural Function, and Cognitive Performance: The Neurovisceral Integration Perspective on Self-Regulation, Adaptation, and Health. *Ann. Behav. Med.* **2009**, *37*, 141–153. [CrossRef]

21. Hirachan, N.; Mathews, A.; Romero, J.; Rojas, R.F. Measuring Cognitive Workload Using Multimodal Sensors. In Proceedings of the 2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC), Glasgow, UK, 11–15 July 2022; pp. 4921–4924.

22. Fan, X.; Zhao, C.; Zhang, X.; Luo, H.; Zhang, W.; Schwarzacher, S.P.; Gómez, C. Assessment of Mental Workload Based on Multi-Physiological Signals. *Technol. Health Care* **2020**, *28*, 67–80. [CrossRef]

23. Liu, Y.; Yu, Y.; Tao, H.; Ye, Z.; Wang, S.; Li, H.; Hu, D.; Zhou, Z.; Zeng, L.-L. Cognitive Load Prediction from Multimodal Physiological Signals Using Multiview Learning. *IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform.* **2023**, *99*, 1–11. [CrossRef]

24. Bradley, M.M.; Lang, P.J. The International Affective Picture System (IAPS) in the Study of Emotion and Attention. In *Handbook of Emotion Elicitation and Assessment*; Coan, J.A., Allen, J.J.B., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007; pp. 29–46.

25. Lang, P.J.; Bradley, M.M.; Cuthbert, B.N. International Affective Picture System (IAPS): Affective Ratings of Pictures and Instruction Manual 2008. In *Technical Report A-8*; University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2008. In *Technical Report A-8*; University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2008.

26. Yun, H.; Fortenbacher, A.; Helbig, R.; Pinkwart, N. In Search of Learning Indicators: A Study on Sensor Data and IAPS Emotional Pictures. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, Heraklion, Greece, 2–4 May 2019; pp. 111–121.

27. Owen, A.M.; McMillan, K.M.; Laird, A.R.; Bullmore, E. N-back Working Memory Paradigm: A Meta-analysis of Normative Functional Neuroimaging Studies. *Hum. Brain Mapp.* **2005**, *25*, 46–59. [CrossRef]

28. Cegarra, J.; Morgado, N. Étude Des Propriétés de La Version Francophone Du NASA-TLX. In *EPIQUE 2009: 5ème Colloque de Psychologie Ergonomique*; Nice, France, 2009; pp. 233–239.

29. Hart, S.G.; Staveland, L.E. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. In *Advances in Psychology*; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1988; Volume 52, pp. 139–183. ISBN 978-0-444-70388-0.

30. Iciti Lciti/cvxEDA 2024. Available online: https://github.com/lciti/cvxEDA (accessed on 4 April 2025).

31. Tanaka, K.; Hargens, A.R. Wavelet Packet Transform for R-R Interval Variability. *Med. Eng. Phys.* **2004**, *26*, 313–319. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

32. Pichot, V.; Gaspoz, J.-M.; Molliex, S.; Antoniadis, A.; Busso, T.; Roche, F.; Costes, F.; Quintin, L.; Lacour, J.-R.; Barthélémy, J.-C. Wavelet Transform to Quantify Heart Rate Variability and to Assess Its Instantaneous Changes. *J. Appl. Physiol.* **1999**, *86*, 1081–1091. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

33. Ahmadi, N.K.; Ozgur, S.F.; Kiziltan, E. Evaluating the Effects of Different Cognitive Tasks on Autonomic Nervous System Responses: Implementation of a High-Precision, Low-Cost Complementary Method. *Brain Behav.* **2024**, *14*, e70089. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

34. Masi, G.; Amprimo, G.; Ferraris, C.; Priano, L. Stress and Workload Assessment in Aviation—A Narrative Review. *Sensors* **2023**, *23*, 3556. [CrossRef]

35. Sriranga, A.K.; Lu, Q.; Birrell, S. A Systematic Review of In-Vehicle Physiological Indices and Sensor Technology for Driver Mental Workload Monitoring. *Sensors* **2023**, *23*, 2214. [CrossRef]

36. Hertzum, M. Reference Values and Subscale Patterns for the Task Load Index (TLX): A Meta-Analytic Review. *Ergonomics* **2021**, *64*, 869–878. [CrossRef]

37. Ayres, P.; Lee, J.Y.; Paas, F.; van Merriënboer, J.J.G. The Validity of Physiological Measures to Identify Differences in Intrinsic Cognitive Load. *Front. Psychol.* **2021**, *12*, 702538. [CrossRef]
38. Romine, W.; Schroeder, N.; Banerjee, T.; Graft, J. Toward Mental Effort Measurement Using Electrodermal Activity Features. *Sensors* **2022**, *22*, 7363. [CrossRef]

39. Alshanskaia, E.I.; Portnova, G.V.; Liaukovich, K.; Martynova, O.V. Pupillometry and Autonomic Nervous System Responses to Cognitive Load and False Feedback: An Unsupervised Machine Learning Approach. *Front. Neurosci.* **2024**, *18*, 1445697. [CrossRef]

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.