## 3 Results  
### Skin Conductance  
Figure 2 shows an example of the data for a subject before and after the EF treatment. For the SC-SF analysis, the number of fluctuations larger than 20 nS was counted (filled circle in Figure 2, Spontaneous Fluctuations). In the analysis of SCL, the mean amplitude during the measurement was calculated (Figure 2, Conductance Level).  
Figure 3 presents a summary of the data on SC-SFs and SCLs in the 12 subjects. The number of SC-SFs (/min, mean \(\pm\) s.d.) in the EF treatment session was 3.58 \(\pm\) 4.12 before the EF treatment and 1.58 \(\pm\) 2.19 after the EF treatment. That in the sham treatment was 3.75 \(\pm\) 5.19 before the sham treatment and 6.50 \(\pm\) 5.93 after the treatment. The two-way repeated-measure ANOVA showed no significance for the Time factor (before vs. after, F(1, 11) = 0.1718, \(p\) = 0.6865) or the EF factor (EF vs. sham, F(1, 11) = 2.449, \(p\) = 0.1459), but it revealed that the interaction between the Time factor and the EF factor was significant (F (1, 11) = 11.10, \(p\) = 0.0067). [PERSON]'s post hoc multiple-comparison test showed that the number of SC-SFs after the EF treatment was significantly lower than that before the EF treatment (95% CI = 0.1111 to 3.889, \(p\) = 0.0372), indicating that the number of SC-SFs was significantly reduced by the EF treatment.  
The SCL (\(\mu\)S, mean \(\pm\) s.d.) in the EF treatment session was 3.40 \(\pm\) 1.69 before the EF treatment and 3.41 \(\pm\) 2.06 after the EF treatment. In the sham treatment, it was 4.82 \(\pm\) 3.47 before the sham treatment and 5.629 \(\pm\) 3.601 after the treatment. The two-way repeated-measure ANOVA showed no significance for the Time factor (F(1, 11) = 0.7156, \(p\) = 0.4156) and the interaction of the Time and EF factors (F(1, 11) = 0.5292, \(p\) = 0.4821), but it revealed that the EF factor was significant (F(1, 11) = 9.605, \(p\) = 0.0101), indicating that the SCLs in the EF and sham sessions were different in the same subject.  
The relation between SCFs and the SCL before and after the EF and sham treatments is presented in Figure 4. The Spearman correlation coefficient was significant before (r = 0.78  
Figure 4: Correlation between spontaneous fluctuations and the skin conductance level. Correlations were significant in the data before (r = 0.7887, \(p\) = 0.0034) and after (r = 0.6694, \(p\) = 0.0211) the EF treatment, as well as in the data before (r = 0.8116, \(p\) = 0.0024) the sham treatment (Spearman correlation coefficient). Filled circles indicate the individual data. Linear regression lines are presented to indicate data that showed statistical significance.  
Figure 3: Spontaneous fluctuations in skin conductance and conductance levels before (filled column) and after (open column) the EF or sham treatment. The means and standard deviations (vertical bar) for the 12 subjects are presented. For spontaneous fluctuation, two-way repeated-measure ANOVA showed that the interaction of the Time (before vs. after) and EF factors (EF vs. sham) was significant. [PERSON]’s post hoc test indicated that the number of spontaneous fluctuations in skin conductance was lowered after the EF treatment (an asterisk). For conductance level, the EF factor was significant, indicating that the conductance level in the sham session was greater than that in the EF session both before and after the treatment.