I believe that those values only provide information in terms of the intensity of arousal, from which you can't directly infer the valence. However, there is strong empirical support for the fact that negative emotions have stronger arousal responses than positive ones, since negative emotions (or affect) normally instructs the body to react, the so called "fight or flight" reaction. Good luck with your interesting research.

Hi

Adding on what the other colleagues said and I fully agree, I find it useful to use as a measure of emotional impact Bradley and Lang's Self Assessment Manikin (SAM), a pictorial instrument which includes a Valence Scale (plus an arousal and a Dominance scale). You can incorporate them in your experiment easily. Hope this is useful.

Best of luck with your study

Dear Rita Rueff-Lopes, Renzo Bianchi and A.D. Gaspar ·thanks for yor answers and suggesitons. Dear Gaspar after each advertisement presentation we are asking to the clients degree of pleasantness/unpleasantness and purchase intention. Scales are between -4.....0.....4.

Hi ! Here is a link to Fansceca Citron publications showing interaction between arousal and emotional valence.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260266094_Arousal_and_emotional_valence_interact_in_written_word_recognition

Article Arousal and emotional valence interact in written word recognition

What has already been said is true. Skin conductance is an indicator of autonomic arousal; one can't really use it to indicate valence. There are also considerable limitations to skin conductance. There is tremendous inter-individual variability in response strength, and often skin conductance measures do not actually correlate with self-reported arousal intra-individually. In addition, the placement of skin conductance electrodes can affect results. It has been postulated that perspiration on the thenar eminence might mean something quite different in terms of autonomic responding to perspiration on the back of the hand, or other parts of the body. There is also considerable debate on what drives galvanic response. While once it was assumed to be an entirely sympathetic phenomenon, many now believe the parasympathetic nervous system is also involved in this physiological function. HRV lends itself better to interpretation, though there is of course still a lot of inter-individual difference in the way people respond to cues. If you are not familiar with the interpretation of HRV data I'd be happy to send some refs that will help.

Dear David Eddiethanks for yor answer. Dear All a collegue of mine suggest me a paper. There is a table (Table 4.2). There is explaining on the table what happens to gsr and hrv microsiemens values in different emotions. What is your opinions about the table? Could you please share your opinions with me. Best

Autonomic nervous system activity in emotion: A review

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0301051110000827/1-s2.0-S0301051110000827-main.pdf?_tid=3ca40724-89de-11e4-a5fd-00000aab0f6c&acdnat=1419255012_34db6a1c1c144904b72e765b89430c5e

Hi Dr. Boz, I'm having trouble accessing this article. Could you possibly email it to me?

Same problem as David Eddie. I am really curious about that table.

Could you email it to me at [email protected]

Dear Dr. Eddie and Dr. Gaspar;

I have just send you two articles. I am looking forward your answers.

Best 

Hakan

Thanks for sending the article. Regarding the highlighted sections. Such findings have certainly been shown. Note though the age of the cited papers. In the years since their publication many studies have also found contradictory findings. Also, these studies reflect what was known/understood about skin conductance 20+ years ago. You'll find the more recent literature accepts galvanic response is far more complex than we thought back then. Recognize too that there is tremendous variability across individuals in terms of galvanic response. Even though you may see effects at the level of the mean, many individuals exhibit extremely low galvanic response to cues, while others respond extremely strongly. I did not see table 4.2 so I can't comment on that. I'm guessing that was in a different article.

Dear Dr. Eddie and Ruef-Lopez thanks for your answers and contributions.  I have read your comments carefully. But I haveadditional findings "When an individual is experiencing an unpleasant stimulus, the body readies itself for aversive action; the HR decelerates, sweat gland activity increases, and facial muscles associated with

frowning are activated. When the stimulus is pleasant, the body readies itself for an appetitive response by initially decelerating HR, increasing sweat gland activity,

and activating facial muscles associated with smiling (Bradley et al., 2001)."

Bradley's paper is a pioneer work about this topic and also relatively new. What do you think about this passage?

Also I added table 4.2 from "Autonomic nervous system activity in emotion: A review" Finally I have found new a markable paper "Brand Love is in the Heart - Physiological Responding to Advertised Brands"  about this topic. If you have a time. You can read it.

Best 

Hakan

I don't mean to be a naysayer, but I must caution you about characterizing affective responses in such broad brushstrokes. While this table is interesting it represents only the modal response. Further, HRV is characterized by dozens of distinct indices (e.g., pNN50, SDNN, High frequency HRV, Low frequency HRV etc). To lump them all together with one index as they do in this table loses much needed specificity. Note also the table contradicts Bradley et al.'s observation. 

Know that interpreting psychophysiological data is an extremely challenging process that requires a very high level of expertise—even experts have a lot of trouble making sense of their data. When our lab interprets psychophysiological responses we consider multiple measures including at least a dozen HRV indices, continuously measured blood pressure, skin conductance, and respiration. Considering all this information together one can begin to generate hypotheses about what all these autonomic responses mean, but we can't know such things absolutely. 

Dear colleagues,

the idea to characterize advertisements by "objective" psychophysiological measures is an old one, which does not mean that a satisfying realization has been found. Psychophysiological responses are ambiguous, there are no 1:1 relationships between a signal change and psychological function.

Additionally to the opinion of my colleagues I would like to shift the focus to the experimental design, or better to the experimental procedure during which psychophysiological measures are acquired. In my opinion, the procedure is crucial for making sense out of psychophysiological data.

Some examples illustrating that point, based on GSR responses to characterize basic mechanisms of perception and learning:

1. Detection of  stimulus: find a stimulus-related GSR response in a post-stimulus time window.

2. Storage of a stimulus: indicated by habituation of the GSR response, ocurring  during repetition of the same stimulus. this indicates that a representation of the stimulus is kept in memory (comparator model according to Sokolov).

3. Discrimination of two stimuli: is indicated by dishabituation of the GSR response with a second, deviant stimulus presented after complete habituation of the response to a repetitive first stimulus.

... and so on. Priming effects could also be used to judge on the efficiency of advertisements. In the realm of cognitive psychophysiology you will find lots of procedural arrangements making sense out of psychophysiological parameters.

Best,

Dieter

I agree with Dr. Kleinbohl. It is only through careful experimentation that we're going to properly elucidate the relationship between affective states, psychophysiological processes, and stimulus response.

Dear all. I am really thanks for your contributions. I have found my way by help oy you. Warm wishes...

Dear Colleagues: I have found your comments higly appealing and with a rich cultural apportation side. Our clinical experience with chronic pain patients led us become involved with the need of recolecting  the most objetive assessment  possible from a higly subjetive  problem, we began ( see Colotla and Dominguez , Urology 1974)  to include psychophysiological  methods looking for more objetitivity , as mentioned by Dieter   "Psychophysiological responses are ambiguous, there are no 1:1 relationships between a signal change and psychological function", but at our field we must to advance even througth ambiguity; currently we use HRV  specifically  the parasympatic branch in i order to obtain an objetive index of relief, and emotional  recovery with our patients, in our experince galvanic response is only a sympatic index wich only give us a side of the problem. Of course there are many methodological , and theorical problems wich remain but we can say that HRV(Porges 2013) and other immunological markers ( Slavish et al Brain, Behavior and Immunity, 2015)  supply our field with interesting, non invasive and friendly  objetive assessment devices