| Literature DB >> 25256113 |
Sajjad Samiee1, Shahram Azadi2, Reza Kazemi3, Ali Nahvi4, Arno Eichberger5.
Abstract
This study proposes a drowsiness detection approach based on the combination of several different detection methods, with robustness to the input signal loss. Hence, if one of the methods fails for any reason, the whole system continues to work properly. To choose correct combination of the available methods and to utilize the benefits of methods of different categories, an image processing-based technique as well as a method based on driver-vehicle interaction is used. In order to avoid driving distraction, any use of an intrusive method is prevented. A driving simulator is used to gather real data and then artificial neural networks are used in the structure of the designed system. Several tests were conducted on twelve volunteers while their sleeping situations during one day prior to the tests, were fully under control. Although the impact of the proposed system on the improvement of the detection accuracy is not remarkable, the results indicate the main advantages of the system are the reliability of the detections and robustness to the loss of the input signals. The high reliability of the drowsiness detection systems plays an important role to reduce drowsiness related road accidents and their associated costs.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25256113 PMCID: PMC4208253 DOI: 10.3390/s140917832
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
List of the different drowsiness detection methods and their possible cause of failure.
| Driver's face tracking (image processing methods) | 1-Performance reduction in low ambient light |
| 2-Performance reduction while wearing glasses or having beard | |
| 3-Tracking failure due to fast movements | |
|
| |
| Heart and brain signal processing | 1-Intrusive method |
| 2-Reduce driver concentration | |
| 3-Driver may forget to use (wear) the sensors | |
|
| |
| Driver reaction to a message | 1-Intrusive method |
| 2-Not real-time | |
|
| |
| Lane departure warning | 1-Unnecessary warnings |
| 2-System failure due to lack of clarity in road markings | |
|
| |
| Driver vehicle interaction/driving behavior | 1-Closely dependent to driver's driving habits |
| 2-Changes by driver emotional state (anger, anxiety, sadness) | |
Figure 1.Driving simulator used to gather data.
Recorded vehicle dynamics data.
| 1 | Vehicle Longitudinal Position |
| 2 | Vehicle Lateral Position |
| 3 | Vehicle Longitudinal Velocity |
| 4 | Vehicle Lateral Velocity |
| 5 | Steering Wheel Torque |
| 6 | Steering Wheel Angle |
| 7 | Gas Pedal Position |
| 8 | Brake Pedal Force |
Figure 2.Images recorded by: (a) infrared camera and (b) low-lux camera in a dark room.
Figure 3.A view of the designed path.
Figure 4.Vehicle path sample for a 20 s period and speed of 60 km/h. (a) Alert and (b) drowsy driver.
Figure 5.Vehicle lateral position within nine samples.
Figure 6.A sample of steering angle variations in a 20 s period.
Figure 7.Duration of eye closure for 33 different time series.
Figure 8.The structure of the proposed drowsiness detection system.
Performance of each method in drowsiness detection.
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blinking | Awake | 303 | 27 | 91.72% | 8.18% | 10.95% | 89.05% | 90.74% |
| Drowsy | 23 | 187 | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Lateral Position | Awake | 295 | 35 | 89.39% | 10.61% | 20.95% | 79.05% | 85.37% |
| Drowsy | 44 | 166 | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Steering Angle | Awake | 292 | 38 | 88.48% | 11.52% | 14.77% | 85.23% | 87.22% |
| Drowsy | 31 | 179 | ||||||
Performance of the designed system in case of input signal loss.
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.345 | 0.324 | 0.331 | Awake | 312 | 18 | 94.63% | |
| Drowsy | 11 | 199 | |||||
|
| |||||||
| 0 | 0.495 | 0.505 | Awake | 289 | 41 | 87.78% | |
| Drowsy | 25 | 185 | |||||
|
| |||||||
| 0.510 | 0 | 0.490 | Awake | 296 | 34 | 90.19% | |
| Drowsy | 19 | 191 | |||||
|
| |||||||
| 0.515 | 0.485 | 0 | Awake | 292 | 38 | 89.44% | |
| Drowsy | 19 | 191 | |||||