| Literature DB >> 28257073 |
Xiaoliang Zhang1, Jiali Li2, Yugang Liu3, Zutao Zhang4, Zhuojun Wang5, Dianyuan Luo6, Xiang Zhou7, Miankuan Zhu8, Waleed Salman9, Guangdi Hu10, Chunbai Wang11.
Abstract
The vigilance of the driver is important for railway safety, despite not being included in the safety management system (SMS) for high-speed train safety. In this paper, a novel fatigue detection system for high-speed train safety based on monitoring train driver vigilance using a wireless wearable electroencephalograph (EEG) is presented. This system is designed to detect whether the driver is drowsiness. The proposed system consists of three main parts: (1) a wireless wearable EEG collection; (2) train driver vigilance detection; and (3) early warning device for train driver. In the first part, an 8-channel wireless wearable brain-computer interface (BCI) device acquires the locomotive driver's brain EEG signal comfortably under high-speed train-driving conditions. The recorded data are transmitted to a personal computer (PC) via Bluetooth. In the second step, a support vector machine (SVM) classification algorithm is implemented to determine the vigilance level using the Fast Fourier transform (FFT) to extract the EEG power spectrum density (PSD). In addition, an early warning device begins to work if fatigue is detected. The simulation and test results demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed fatigue detection system for high-speed train safety.Entities:
Keywords: brain-computer interface; fatigue detection system; high-speed train safety; vigilance detection; wireless wearable
Year: 2017 PMID: 28257073 PMCID: PMC5375772 DOI: 10.3390/s17030486
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Numbers and percentages of train accidents and adverse events.
| Occurrence Category | Type of Adverse Event | Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collision | Human failure (HF) | 1 | 1.28% | 28.2% |
| Technical failure (TF) | 3 | 4.83% | ||
| External intrusion (EI) | 5 | 6.41% | ||
| HF+TF | 2 | 2.56% | ||
| HF+EI | 9 | 11.5% | ||
| TF+EI | 2 | 2.56% | ||
| HF+TF+TF | 0 | 0 | ||
| Derailment | Human failure (HF) | 2 | 2.56% | |
| Technical failure (TF) | 13 | 16.6% | ||
| External intrusion (EI) | 6 | 7.69% | 32.1% | |
| HF+TF | 4 | 5.13% | ||
| HF+EI | 0 | 0 | ||
| TF+EI | 0 | 0 | ||
| HF+TF+TF | 0 | 0 | ||
| Level crossing occurrence | Human failure (HF) | 0 | 0 | |
| Technical failure (TF) | 0 | 0 | ||
| External intrusion (EI) | 2 | 2.56% | 19.2% | |
| HF+TF | 0 | 0 | ||
| HF+EI | 12 | 15.3% | ||
| TF+EI | 0 | 0 | ||
| HF+TF+TF | 1 | 1.28% | ||
| Others | 16 | 16 | 20.5% | |
| Total | 78 | 78 | 100% | |
Numbers and percentages of train accidents based on Human failure (HF).
| Occurrence Category | Number of Related Human Failures (HFs) | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Collision | 12 | 15.38% |
| Derailment | 6 | 7.69% |
| Level crossing occurrence | 13 | 16.67% |
| Total Top 3 frequent occurrence | 31 | 39.74% |
| Total cases | 78 | 100% |
Railway-Performance Shaping Factors (R-PSFs) of train safety in the accident analysis.
| No. | Railway-Performance Shaping Factors (R-PSFs) Total Top 10 Factors | Categories | Accidents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Safety culture (SMS) | Organization | 115 | 19.49% |
| 2 | Distraction (loss of concentration or vigilance) | Personal | 93 | 15.76% |
| 3 | Communication-team work | Team | 90 | 15.25% |
| 4 | System design | System | 71 | 12.03% |
| 5 | Quality of procedures | Organization | 58 | 9.83% |
| 6 | Perception | Personal | 56 | 9.49% |
| 7 | Train (experience) | Personal | 34 | 5.76% |
| 8 | Fatigue (shift pattern) | Personal and Organization | 34 | 5.76% |
| 9 | Workload (time pressure and stress) | Task and Personal | 22 | 3.73% |
| 10 | Quality of information | Team | 17 | 2.88% |
| Total | 590 | 100% |
Survey and comparison of the existing systems used for driver vigilance monitoring.
| Category | Technologies | Pros (Advantage) | Cons (Disadvantage) | Countries |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vehicle-behaviour-based technology | Using lane departure, steering wheel movements, and the pressure of the driving pedal | This technology provides a non-invasive method for the driver | It is difficult to construct a common model due to variability and changes of road circumstances. It is not suitable for high-speed trains because they use a track | America, Europe, South Korea, Japan and China |
| Driver-behaviour-based system | Using eye tracking, percent eye closure and the expression of the driver’s face | It provides a non-invasive method for the driver. Recent progress in machine vision and computer hardware have made it possible to measure the driver’s vigilance | Video is susceptible to driving conditions, such as light conditions. False estimation can also be caused, such as sleeping with open eyes. If the driver leaves the cockpit of train, these technologies cannot detect the driver’s behaviour | America, Europe and France |
| Driver-physiological-signal-based algorithm | Using electroencephalography (EEG), electrooculography (EOG), and Heart Rate Variability (HRV) | These systems are more reliable because physiological drowsiness signs are well known and rather similar from one driver to another. The EEG signal is regarded as a “gold standard” of vigilance detection. In this paper, a wireless wearable EEG signal collection system for high-speed train drivers is presented | The difficulties of the driver-physiological-signal-based measures are in how to obtain EEG signal recordings comfortably under driving conditions and classify the driver vigilance with so many EEG signals. At the same time, the wearable comfortable EEG collection system is very important for train drivers | America, Europe, Japan and China |
Figure 1Flowchart of the proposed high-speed train driver fatigue relief system.
Figure 28-channel wireless wearable BCI system. (a) BCI system model; (b) Homemade BCI system.
Figure 310–20 electrode system.
Figure 4Usage of the BCI system. (a) diagram of usage; (b) Field usage.
Figure 5Fabrication of our proposed wireless wearable BCI system for experiments. (a) Wireless wearable BCI system for train driver; (b) Electrode cap for experiments; (c) Single-channel wireless wearable EEG collection model; (d) The processing model for experiments.
Figure 6BP equipment. (a) BP collection cap; (b) BP signal processing box.
Figure 7Decomposition space tree.
Figure 8Power scalp topographies of various frequency components. (a) power scalp topographies in alertness; (b) power scalp topographies in drowsiness.
Figure 9Linear SVM classification.
Figure 10High-speed train driver’s fatigue warning device. (a) The model of vibrate chair; (b) Experimental massage chair in the test; (c) Experimental massage chair in the test.
Figure 11Experimental environment. (a) Experimental prototype; (b) EEG collection experiment; (c) EEG collection experiment; (d) EEG collection experiment; (e) EEG collection experiment; (f) EEG collection experiment; (g) High-speed train experimental simulator; (h) CRH high-speed train simulation cab; (i) CRH high-speed train simulation monitoring platform; (j) The train driver vigilance detection in experiment.
Ten drivers served in the experiment.
| Driver Sum | Subject | Number | Age |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Male | 7 | 24 |
| 26 | |||
| 40 | |||
| 42 | |||
| 24 | |||
| 22 | |||
| 19 | |||
| Female | 3 | 25 | |
| 24 | |||
| 26 |
Figure 12Raw EEG signal in alert and drowsy states from our equipment.
Figure 13Raw EEG signal in alert and drowsy states from BP equipment.
Figure 14Original signal and its decomposition at each level.
Figure 15Contour line of the classification accuracy. (a) r = 0; (b) r = 1; (c) r = 2; (d) r = 3; (e) r = 4.
Classification accuracy (%) of the testing data (O1).
| Driver1 | Driver2 | Driver3 | Driver4 | Driver5 | Driver6 | Driver7 | Driver8 | Driver9 | Driver10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 77.49 | 78.71 | 78.49 | 85.63 | 85.10 | 85.73 | 81.86 | 79.77 | 79.20 | 76.71 |
| 1 | 80.27 | 83.57 | 80.26 | 88.44 | 86.46 | 87.93 | 82.62 | 80.35 | 81.81 | 81.11 |
| 2 | 84.74 | 86.13 | 81.23 | 89.19 | 88.84 | 88.87 | 86.21 | 86.53 | 85.07 | 85.45 |
| 3 | 88.70 | 89.42 | 85.34 | 91.16 | 89.74 | 89.24 | 87.32 | 89.19 | 87.79 | 90.95 |
| 4 | 91.18 | 92.69 | 95.64 | 93.02 | 90.70 | 91.11 | 91.91 | 93.90 | 91.35 | 92.44 |
Classification accuracy (%) of the testing data (O2).
| Driver1 | Driver2 | Driver3 | Driver4 | Driver5 | Driver6 | Driver7 | Driver8 | Driver9 | Driver10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 85.78 | 88.68 | 76.15 | 81.27 | 77.43 | 82.13 | 79.33 | 78.31 | 81.90 | 76.67 |
| 1 | 87.46 | 91.26 | 83.09 | 82.57 | 81.88 | 83.91 | 83.24 | 82.24 | 84.88 | 80.52 |
| 2 | 91.42 | 93.91 | 87.50 | 83.76 | 84.93 | 87.68 | 86.71 | 85.45 | 87.19 | 83.62 |
| 3 | 95.09 | 96.26 | 91.69 | 88.79 | 86.28 | 88.97 | 88.51 | 87.51 | 91.74 | 87.18 |
| 4 | 96.38 | 98.25 | 93.19 | 93.46 | 91.59 | 92.73 | 91.57 | 91.93 | 93.17 | 94.94 |
Sensitivity (s) of testing data (O1).
| Driver1 | Driver2 | Driver3 | Driver4 | Driver5 | Driver6 | Driver7 | Driver8 | Driver9 | Driver10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 68.34 | 70.06 | 69.75 | 79.77 | 79.02 | 79.91 | 74.49 | 71.56 | 70.75 | 67.23 |
| 1 | 72.26 | 76.89 | 72.25 | 83.67 | 80.92 | 82.97 | 75.56 | 72.37 | 74.42 | 73.44 |
| 2 | 78.53 | 80.46 | 81.23 | 84.71 | 84.23 | 84.27 | 80.58 | 81.02 | 78.99 | 79.52 |
| 3 | 84.03 | 85.03 | 85.34 | 87.43 | 85.47 | 84.78 | 82.12 | 84.71 | 82.77 | 87.14 |
| 4 | 87.46 | 89.54 | 93.59 | 89.99 | 86.80 | 87.36 | 88.47 | 91.20 | 87.70 | 89.20 |
Sensitivity (s) of testing data (O2).
| Driver1 | Driver2 | Driver3 | Driver4 | Driver5 | Driver6 | Driver7 | Driver8 | Driver9 | Driver10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 79.98 | 84.01 | 66.44 | 73.67 | 68.25 | 74.87 | 70.94 | 69.50 | 74.55 | 67.17 |
| 1 | 82.31 | 87.57 | 76.20 | 75.49 | 74.52 | 77.37 | 76.43 | 75.03 | 78.72 | 72.61 |
| 2 | 87.79 | 91.22 | 82.37 | 77.16 | 78.79 | 82.62 | 81.27 | 79.52 | 81.94 | 76.96 |
| 3 | 92.83 | 94.43 | 88.16 | 84.16 | 80.67 | 84.41 | 83.77 | 82.38 | 88.23 | 81.92 |
| 4 | 94.59 | 97.15 | 90.23 | 90.60 | 88.03 | 89.60 | 88.00 | 88.50 | 90.20 | 92.63 |
False positives (s) of testing data (O1).
| Driver1 | Driver2 | Driver3 | Driver4 | Driver5 | Driver6 | Driver7 | Driver8 | Driver9 | Driver10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 13.34 | 12.64 | 12.77 | 8.51 | 8.83 | 8.45 | 10.77 | 12.02 | 12.35 | 13.81 |
| 1 | 11.72 | 9.75 | 11.72 | 6.79 | 8.00 | 7.11 | 10.32 | 11.67 | 10.80 | 11.22 |
| 2 | 9.05 | 8.20 | 11.15 | 6.33 | 6.55 | 6.53 | 8.16 | 7.96 | 8.85 | 8.62 |
| 3 | 6.63 | 6.19 | 8.68 | 5.11 | 5.99 | 6.30 | 7.48 | 6.33 | 7.19 | 5.24 |
| 4 | 5.10 | 4.16 | 2.31 | 3.95 | 5.40 | 5.15 | 4.65 | 3.40 | 5.00 | 4.32 |
False positive (s) of testing data (O2).
| Driver1 | Driver2 | Driver3 | Driver4 | Driver5 | Driver6 | Driver7 | Driver8 | Driver9 | Driver10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 8.42 | 6.65 | 14.14 | 11.13 | 13.39 | 10.61 | 12.28 | 12.88 | 10.75 | 13.83 |
| 1 | 7.39 | 5.05 | 10.04 | 10.35 | 10.76 | 9.55 | 9.95 | 10.55 | 8.96 | 11.57 |
| 2 | 4.95 | 3.40 | 7.37 | 9.64 | 8.93 | 7.26 | 7.85 | 8.62 | 7.56 | 9.72 |
| 3 | 2.65 | 1.91 | 4.78 | 6.58 | 8.11 | 6.47 | 6.75 | 7.36 | 4.75 | 7.56 |
| 4 | 1.84 | 0.65 | 3.85 | 3.68 | 4.84 | 4.14 | 4.86 | 4.65 | 3.86 | 2.75 |
Testing time (s) of O1.
| Driver1 | Driver2 | Driver3 | Driver4 | Driver5 | Driver6 | Driver7 | Driver8 | Driver9 | Driver10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.96 | 1.01 | 1.00 |
| 1 | 1.27 | 1.29 | 1.31 | 1.28 | 1.31 | 1.30 | 1.35 | 1.30 | 1.35 | 1.30 |
| 2 | 1.57 | 1.58 | 1.59 | 1.59 | 1.59 | 1.58 | 1.60 | 1.59 | 1.63 | 1.55 |
| 3 | 1.89 | 1.91 | 1.90 | 1.90 | 1.93 | 1.92 | 1.87 | 1.91 | 1.88 | 1.88 |
| 4 | 2.19 | 2.16 | 2.29 | 2.22 | 2.21 | 2.23 | 2.24 | 2.31 | 2.21 | 2.19 |
Testing time (s) of O2.
| Driver1 | Driver2 | Driver3 | Driver4 | Driver5 | Driver6 | Driver7 | Driver8 | Driver9 | Driver10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.97 |
| 1 | 1.29 | 1.31 | 1.29 | 1.31 | 1.33 | 1.29 | 1.28 | 1.30 | 1.31 | 1.26 |
| 2 | 1.66 | 1.64 | 1.59 | 1.65 | 1.60 | 1.60 | 1.62 | 1.60 | 1.61 | 1.55 |
| 3 | 1.87 | 1.93 | 1.92 | 1.94 | 1.89 | 1.93 | 1.92 | 1.88 | 1.87 | 1.94 |
| 4 | 2.21 | 2.30 | 2.36 | 2.26 | 2.26 | 2.22 | 2.29 | 2.18 | 2.21 | 2.21 |
Comparison.
| Reference NO. | Preprocess | Time Window | Model | Signal Source | Terminal Device | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Band-pass filter | 10 min | Mahalanobis distance | Single-Channel | - | 82 |
| [ | Band-pass filter | 1 min | SVMPPM | Three-Channel | Smartwatch | 88.6 |
| Present work | DWT | SVM | Eight-Channel | Massage Chair | 90.70 |