In the title of your article you state "does not affect..." This is a strong assertion of no difference observed. That is, you claim to have demonstrated statistical support for the null hypothesis. I find this to be a faulty conclusion based on power issues indicated in previous queries and lack of appropriate testing methods.

You are trying to avoid a type II error. You are making a decision...

This study involves healthy volunteers and not a rare patient population. A sample size of 13, which drops to 12 for skin conductance, seems odd. The experiment presumably lacks statistical power and the paper doesn’t justify or discuss this glaring limitation.

Why was this not challenged by reviewers?

PeerJ needs to consider these issues very carefully if it is trying to encourage scientis...