Literature DB >> 21095770

Evaluation of PERCLOS based current fatigue monitoring technologies.

D Sommer1, M Golz.   

Abstract

In an overnight driving simulation study three commercially available devices of fatigue monitoring technologies (FMT) were applied to test their accuracy. 16 volunteers performed driving tasks during eight sessions (40 min each) separated by 15 minutes breaks. The main output variable of FMT devices, which is the percentage of eye closure (PERCLOS), the driving performance (standard deviation of lateral position in lane, SDL), the electroencephalogram (EEG) and electrooculogram (EOG) were recorded during driving. In addition, the subjective self-rated Karolinska sleepiness scale (KSS) was assessed every 2 min. As expected, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (PMCC) yielded significant linear dependence between KSS and PERCLOS as well as between SDL and PERCLOS. However, if PMCC was estimated within smaller data segments (3 min) as well as without averaging across subjects then strongly decreased correlation coefficients resulted. To further validate PERCLOS at higher temporal resolution its ability to discriminate between mild and strong fatigue was investigated and compared to the results of the same analysis for EEG/EOG. Spectral-domain features of both types of signals were classified using Support-Vector Machines (SVM). Results suggest that EEG/EOG indicate driver fatigue much better than PERCLOS. Therefore, current FMT devices perform acceptably if temporal resolution is low (> 20 min). But, even under laboratory conditions large errors have to be expected if fatigue is estimated on an individual level and with high temporal resolution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21095770     DOI: 10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5625960

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc        ISSN: 2375-7477


  9 in total

Review 1.  Inside the clinical evaluation of sleepiness: subjective and objective tools.

Authors:  Simone Baiardi; Susanna Mondini
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 2.816

2.  The accuracy of eyelid movement parameters for drowsiness detection.

Authors:  Vanessa E Wilkinson; Melinda L Jackson; Justine Westlake; Bronwyn Stevens; Maree Barnes; Philip Swann; Shantha M W Rajaratnam; Mark E Howard
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2013-12-15       Impact factor: 4.062

3.  Sensor Networks for Aerospace Human-Machine Systems.

Authors:  Nichakorn Pongsakornsathien; Yixiang Lim; Alessandro Gardi; Samuel Hilton; Lars Planke; Roberto Sabatini; Trevor Kistan; Neta Ezer
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 3.576

Review 4.  Electroencephalogram-Based Approaches for Driver Drowsiness Detection and Management: A Review.

Authors:  Gang Li; Wan-Young Chung
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 3.576

5.  Driver drowsiness estimation using EEG signals with a dynamical encoder-decoder modeling framework.

Authors:  Sadegh Arefnezhad; James Hamet; Arno Eichberger; Matthias Frühwirth; Anja Ischebeck; Ioana Victoria Koglbauer; Maximilian Moser; Ali Yousefi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 6.  Person-directed, non-pharmacological interventions for sleepiness at work and sleep disturbances caused by shift work.

Authors:  Tracy E Slanger; J Valérie Gross; Andreas Pinger; Peter Morfeld; Miriam Bellinger; Anna-Lena Duhme; Rosalinde Amancay Reichardt Ortega; Giovanni Costa; Tim R Driscoll; Russell G Foster; Lin Fritschi; Mikael Sallinen; Juha Liira; Thomas C Erren
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-08-23

7.  A smartphone-based driver safety monitoring system using data fusion.

Authors:  Boon-Giin Lee; Wan-Young Chung
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2012-12-17       Impact factor: 3.576

8.  Estimating endogenous changes in task performance from EEG.

Authors:  Jon Touryan; Gregory Apker; Brent J Lance; Scott E Kerick; Anthony J Ries; Kaleb McDowell
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2014-06-13       Impact factor: 4.677

9.  Eye-Tracking Metrics Predict Perceived Workload in Robotic Surgical Skills Training.

Authors:  Chuhao Wu; Jackie Cha; Jay Sulek; Tian Zhou; Chandru P Sundaram; Juan Wachs; Denny Yu
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2019-09-27       Impact factor: 2.888

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.